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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Mark E. Mallett wrote:

>On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:44:39AM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>  
>
>>Mark E. Mallett wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>5.1  Action refuse
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> The "refuse" action refuses delivery of a message by sending back
>>>> the 550 SMTP response code to an SMTP client.
>>>>
>>>> This extension can be only supported by a Sieve implementation
>>>> running in an MTA.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> 
>>>The way this is worded, an implementation that communicates with an MTA
>>>via LMTP (or any other protocol or mechanism, for that matter) is
>>>prohibited from using "refuse."  There are multiple ways that an MDA may
>>>be invoked by an MTA during the SMTP dialog, where refusal can be
>>>communicated back to the SMTP client.  The MTA itself isn't necessarily
>>>(and probably isn't likely to be) running the Sieve script itself.
>>>      
>>>
>>The current copy we are editing says "running in an MTA or MDA". Does 
>>this address your concern?
>>    
>>
>
>I think it's too specific; as Matthew said in another note, the
>important point is that it's running on behalf of an MTA, or via some
>mechanism under which the response is communicated to the SMTP client at
>SMTP time.  You don't have to list the ways that this can be done, other
>than providing some examples.  An MDA is one example, but it doesn't
>have to be the only one.
>  
>
So, possible solutions to address this issue:
1). delete the sentence.
2). reword to be less prescriptive.

Which one do you prefer?

>>>And actually I am not sure that LMTP needs to be mentioned in the
>>>document at all, other than as an example of one of the ways that an MTA
>>>and an MDA might communicate during the SMTP dialog.  The important thing
>>>is that the Sieve script is being run at SMTP time and its results are
>>>somehow used by the MTA to respond to the SMTP client.
>>>      
>>>
>>I actually disagree. The sieve engine I am working on runs in LMTP 
>>server, it is the one that has to implement refuse.
>>    
>>
>
>Well I agree with you, so I must have been unclear :-)
>  
>
Yes, I've misunderstood you.

>It's the same sort of thing as my comment above, about the difference
>between mandating one or more implementations or protocols (e.g. LMTP),
>vs giving those protocols as examples.  It's the difference between
>saying "MUST use LMTP or be implemented in the MTA" and "may, for
>example, use LMTP or may, for example, be implemented in the MTA."
>  
>