[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?
On 1/12/09, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > But really, this entire discussion has gone very far afield. Like it
>> >> > or not,
>> >> > Sieve is intended to be a language used to process email messages at
>> >> > or around
>> >> > the time of final delivery.
>> >> > The fact that it can be adapted for other uses may
>> >> > be interesting to you but simply is not relevant in the context of
>> >> > the work
>> >> > this group is chartered to do.
>> >> is this http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-charter.html the
>> >> charter?
>> > Yes
>> could anyone kindly point me to the sections which indicate that only
>> mail servers of a particular class of architecture are in scope?
> I've already done so in previous messages. It's the very first thing RFC
> the Sieve base specification, says:
> This document describes a language for filtering email messages at
> time of final delivery.
> Final delivery is a formal term used in many IETF email standards. It refers
> the point at which the message exists the SMTP transport infrastructure and
> enters the message store.
> As its charter makes clear, the current Sieve group is chartered to work on
> very specific set of Sieve extensions. There is nothing in there about
> revisiting the scope of applicability of Sieve.
Thank you for taking the time to explain.
I undestand now that this working group has been intentionally
chartered to exclude mail servers with a spooling architecture. Can
anybody explain why the IETF decided to exclude this class of mail
server from it's specification process?