Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-00.txt

[Matthew Elvey <[e-mail]>]

Misleading the user into thinking that he's reducing bounces is 
unacceptable.  I am extremely firmly opposed to any changes that allow 
refuse and reject to have the exact same results from the users/victim's 
viewpoint.  The AU's email system is compliant or it isn't.  Saying the 
system is compliant when just a piece theoretically could be, but when 
in actual use, the system isn't compliant makes no sense.  It seems 
we'll have to go for rough consensus, noting this as a point of 
disagreement. 
Consider: You can't deduce that 'a boa constrictor is harmless' from the 
fact that 'a dead boa constrictor is harmless'.


On 8/23/05 1:01 PM, Mark E. Mallett sent forth electrons to convey:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:21:39PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
>   
>> No, that doesn't address my concern from a previous email:
>>
>> On 8/19/05 2:18 PM, Matthew Elvey sent forth electrons to convey:
>>     
>>> ...[If] a Sieve script running on Dest  encounters a 'refuse', and 
>>> sends a 550 to Relay 2, if Relay 2 then generates a bounce, instead of 
>>> sending a 550 to MSA, then Dest MUST NOT be considered compliant with 
>>> 'refuse'. 
>>>   +------------+                                    +-----------+
>>>   | Originator |                                    | Recipient |
>>>   +-----+------+                                    +-----------+
>>>         |                                                 ^
>>>         |                    Internet                     |
>>>         |                    ___^___                      |
>>>         V                   /       \                     |
>>>     +---------+    +--------+       +---------+      +----+----+
>>>     |         |    |        |       |         |      |         |
>>>     | Source  +--->| MSA    +------>|  Relay2 +----> |  Dest   |
>>>     |         |    |        |       |         |      |         |
>>>     +----+----+    +--------+       +---------+      +---------+
>>>
>>>                                 \_________Destination_AU__________/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> That's why we need something like "between Administrative Units" of 
>> "over the open Internet".
>>