[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject approved by IESG
We can definitely get the author information fixed before publication,
at least during AUTH48 if not sooner by request to the RFC Editor.
I didn't respond to your earlier objections because I couldn't figure
out where the substantive changes were, and even so, none had any WG
consensus. I apologize for basically ignoring you, but the WG has strong
consensus on this document as it now stands and really, really wants to
see it published.
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 01:28 -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> On 11/19/08 11:07 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > Lisa Dusseault wrote (Re: Fwd: SIEVE bounced SIEVE bounce message):
> >> Oh the irony. I send a message saying that the SIEVE document
> >> refuse-reject has been approved, and it gets bounced by Elvey's SIEVE
> >> filter.
> > Yes. Messages from Cyrus, Aaron and myself all bounced as well.
> Sorry about that. Perhaps you were using the sieve3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> address that I retired long ago. I did not want that address in
> refuse-reject either. I asked that it be replaced with
> matthew@xxxxxxxxx, to no avail. Too late, no? I wrote to the list on
> 9/10/08: "I believe ... issues that have been raised need to be
> addressed; a WGLC and LC are also needed. " I don't see that -09 had
> either a WGLC or LC.
> -09 is a big improvement on RFC 3028, but fails to address some of the
> issues I raised on on 9/10/08, primarily the inappropriateness of
> allowing a system "B" to be considered compliant with "ereject".
> (BTW, the MAY in
> " However implementations MAY refuse delivery over SMTP/LMTP
> protocol " (line 318)
> should be a SHOULD; I don't see what holds it back. The last-minute
> removals of the word "purported" also makes the spec misleading; they
> hide a hurdle that contributed to its deficiencies.)
> I am still strongly opposed to to a situation where, if a system implementing the spec works on a store-and-forward basis, it can claim to support ereject, as defined in an RFC.
> We've got Cyrus Daboo, TS Glassy, John Kleinsin, and Kristin Hubner
> using a ridiculous straw man argument as the excuse to push through this
> flawed I-D to RFC status, instead of making the small limited changes I
> have pushed for. (Perhaps some of them led the others to be confused.)
> Specifically, they act as if I haven't made it extremely clear, on
> multiple occasions, that I know that there are plenty of key use cases
> where only doing SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. I had, but
> nonetheless, claiming that I hadn't and that they existed was the
> primary straw man argument used. I'm the primary author of the first
> half dozen versions of this draft, all of which, as I'd recently pointed
> out, went into great detail to make exceptions (including MDNs and DSNs)
> for the key use cases where SMTP protocol rejection is not possible. So
> once again, for the record, I'd like to point out that I never made
> light of those exceptions.
> Amazingly, that straw man argument was in response to my post in which I
> said, among other things:
> Ned acts like [I'm] saying that I'm against allowing Japanese users to fall
> back to out-of-transaction rejects when non-ASCII reject strings need to
> be used. I'm not. Look at the drafts I wrote! They don't do that!
> I'm not upset that people disagree with me. I'd be fine if the
> consensus in the WG (despite my opposition) was that the spam the draft
> unnecessarily permits wasn't important, and if the IESG voted to make it
> an RFC on that basis, following IETF procedure. I would be unhappy,
> sure. but I wouldn't be pissed off.
> But violating process, avoiding debates on the merits, and resorting to
> straw man attacks? That was not cool, and not professional.
> Ned's nasty insults and smearing of me was particularly galling - Ned
> provided no specifics, but claimed I made many inaccurate references to
> him and Sun. I on the other hand, responded to Ned's (and others')
> debate points. I pointed out where Ned had misread what I'd said, or I
> had misspoken, or was wrong, or disagreed. If we don't have debates on
> the merits, and honest dialogue, but instead give political speeches, or
> worse, attack each other, (both of which remind me of typical US
> political debates) we end up with lousy specifications.
> Well, I guess on the bright side, at least the debate is over. The
> horse is dead, the sausage stuffed, as far as I'm concerned. DNR, I say.
> >> Lisa
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>> *From: *Mail Sieve Subsystem <postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> <mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> >>> *Date: *November 19, 2008 12:07:21 PM CST
> >>> *To: *<lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> >>> *Subject: **Automatically rejected mail*
> >>> Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail
> >>> filtering language.
> >>> ...
> >>> Hi,
> >>> There are no remaining DISCUSS positions on this document, and it
> >>> looks like it has enough ballot positions filled to approve. There
> >>> are no RFC Editor notes.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Lisa