Re: comments on refuse

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 15 August 2005 09:34 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7F9YRjD069727; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:34:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j7F9YRYN069726; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7F9YQrq069710 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:34:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:34:15 +0100
Message-ID: <42FE43AF.3090602@isode.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:02:07 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>
CC: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: Re: comments on refuse
References: <200508041245.j74Cj4Ri008008@lab.smi.sendmail.com> <20050805181935.GB8460@nostromo.freenet-ag.de> <42F53583.8050205@elvey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42F53583.8050205@elvey.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Matthew Elvey wrote:

>>> or if the sieve implementation
>>> is behind any MTAs that don't synchronously pass-through messages.  
>>
> A careful reading of the draft will show that such implementations 
> cannot support the refuse extension.

Uh, no. This is not what the current text says and I don't think we 
should prohibit deployment of refuse for such configurations.

> Please reread the draft and let me know if this is not clear. (Section 
> 3, first paragraph)