Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-sieve-spamtestbis-03.txt

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 04:17:19PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >
> > As there were some significant changes to the document, I would like to
> > do another (1 week) WG Last Call on the document.
> > Please send you comments to the mailing list and/or directly to me
> > before June 22nd 2006.

> It looks good to me.

> One mild thought: with the new :count thing, though, wouldn't that be the
> preferred way of seeing if the test were done?  e.g. in 3.2.2:

>    To determine whether the message was tested for spam or not, the
>    preferred solution is to use the test without the ":percent"
>    argument, testing for the normalized result value "0" as described in
>    Section 3.2.1.

> and a few other places and examples.

I certainly would support such a change.

> Also in 3.3, I think the second test in the example would read nicer
> if it were an 'elsif' and not a plain 'if':

>            if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
>            {
>                fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
>            }
>  -->       if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "4"
>            {
>                fileinto "INBOX.quarantine";
>            }

> not that it would cause different results, but it just strikes me as
> more "pure" that way.  (picky, eh)

Sounds good to me.

				Ned