Re: [sieve] Duplicate test

[[e-mail]]

> On 1/18/2013 8:22 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> 2). I found that "the side effect of the test takes force at the end of
> >> a successful script execution" to be odd/awkward. Maybe we can have an
> >> explicit action? Or maybe leaving this as is is Ok... Need to think a
> >> bit more about that.
> >
> > I'm not wild about this either, mostly because when you do this as two
> > steps
> > there's a window where overlapping script executions can cause a
> > duplicate to
> > be missed. Of course locking can be used to prevent this, but given
> > the scale
> > we operate at any use of locking has to be carefully considered.
> >
> > That said, the problem where a script goes wonky and ends up marking
> > something
> > as a duplicate is much more severe, so IMO the draft is handling this
> > the right
> > way.
> >
> > tl;dr: Missing a duplicate is preferable to marking a message as a
> > duplicate
> > incorrectly.

> Exactly.

> Perhaps I should mention these considerations more explicitly in the draft?

Yes, I think that's a good idea.

				Ned