Re: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

Less verbose, previous paragraph for context:

"""
Introduction
...
   This document also describes how to use reject/ereject at varying
   points in the email stack: Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), Mail Delivery
   Agent (MDA), and Mail User Agent (MUA). See [EMAIL-ARCH] for a
   comprehensive discussion of these environments.

   This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status
   Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general,
   an MDN is a human-oriented status, generated by an MUA, while a
   DSN is a machine-oriented status, generated by an MTA.
""""

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 08:06 -0800, Aaron Stone wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 13:54 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> > Hi Pasi,
> > My apologies for the delayed response:
> > 
> > Pasi Eronen wrote:
> > 
> > >Discuss:
> [snip]
> > >The document says the main difference between 'reject' and 'ereject'
> > >is that the latter allows SMTP/LMTP level rejection (and there are
> > >some details about non-ASCII strings).  I think I understand this
> > >part, but it seems there's another difference: the former talks about
> > >sending an MDN, while the latter sends a DSN.
> > >
> > Correct. I would consider MDN versa DSN to be a minor difference.
> > 
> > >I'm not that familiar with the distinction between MDNs and DSNs (and
> > >on first reading, thought they meant the same thing),
> > >
> > They are very similar syntactically. Semantically, DSN is for reporting 
> > delivery status (don't involve a human), while MDN is for reporting user 
> > processing status, such as message read, deleted without reading, etc.
> > 
> > >and I think the
> > >document would benefit from short description here, reminding readers 
> > >that they're not the same thing, and explaining why 'reject' and 
> > >'ereject' do things differently.
> > >
> > The reason why MDNs were chosen in the first place, because reject 
> > action could be implemented in a Mail User Agent. The MUA is not allowed 
> > to generate DSNs, because the message was already delivered to user's 
> > mailbox. At this point only MDNs can be generated.
> > 
> > What happened after RFC 3028 came out was that many more Sieve engines 
> > running inside MTAs or MDAs were developed. For them, generating MDN 
> > might be a bit awkward.
> > 
> > So I am not entirely convinced that stating this difference is going to 
> > be very useful. Please let me know if you still think otherwise.
> 
> I accidentally left an editor's mark in the -08 draft I just posted, and
> mis-attributed the sentence above as [[[arnt's text]]]. I wanted to
> possibly put this into the document to describe the difference of MDN
> vs. DSN.
> 
> Proposed text:
> """
>    This document also specifies the use of a Delivery Status
>    Notification [DSN] instead of an MDN when appropriate. In general,
>    an MDN is generated by an MUA or MDA, and can be used to indicate
>    the status of a message with respect to its recipient, while a DSN
>    is generated by an MTA, and can be used to indicate whether or not
>    a message was received and delivered by the mail system. In other
>    words, an MDN is a human-oriented status while a DSN is a
>    machine-oriented status.
> """
> 
> I'll flip the location of this paragraph in the introduction wrt the paragraph that introduces the reference to EMAIL-ARCH so that MTA, MDA and MUA are already defined at this point.
> 
> Like it? Dislike it? Don't care?
> 
> Aaron
>