Re: draft-elvey-refuse-sieve-02.txt; http://wiki.fastmail.fm/wiki/index.php/SieveExtensionsSupportMatrix

[Kristin Hubner <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:

>
> Kristin Hubner <[e-mail]> writes:
> ..
>> I'm sorry I missed the discussion, as perhaps the issues I will repeat
>> below have been already discussed.
>
> Ned brought this up and it was discussed.
>
>
> ...
>> So either: (1) A "relaxed" reject action would need another parameter
>> specifying whether SMTP level rejection vs. later MDN should be
>> performed, and then the value of that parameter would need to
>> affect what sorts of characters are allowed in the reason string,
>> or else (2) A "relaxed" reject action would need two parameters,
>> one being the SMTP rejection text (ASCII only) and a second parameter
>> would be the MDN text which would allow non-ASCII text.   Or maybe
>> some third approach  I haven't thought of, as long as it allows
>> non-ASCII text when non-ASCII text is legal, and uses ASCII text
>> when ASCII text is required.
>
> At the lunch meeting, it was felt that (2) was the preferable way
> to resolve this, but that the details should be worked out on the
> list.

I also prefer (2).

>
> IMHO, reject should only send an SMTP-level reject if "given
> permission" by an additional tagged argument.  If this argument was
> given but the implementation was unable to perform rejection at the
> SMTP-level for any reason, then it would send a MDN as if the
> argument hasn't been given at all.

Ok, this is sounding good to me: if the latest plan is to extend 
"reject" by adding
some explicit "do-refuse-if-possible" tag and include both possible 
texts, then that
satisfies my concerns.   I was under the (clearly wrong) impression 
that the latest
plan was that just one text would suffice.

In such a case, though, it's still not clear to me why extending 
"reject" with a
"refuse-if-possible" tag and two texts is then necessarily any simpler 
than making a
new "refuse-if-possible" action with two texts.  But I don't have any 
objections to the
way that such an extended "reject" would work.

> It would be nice if the script could not only specify the SMTP
> response text but also the last two digits of the enhanced status
> code (i.e., y and z in the "x.y.z" after the SMTP status code),
> either via another tagged argument or by pulling them from the start
> of the response text whenever it starts with
> 	1*3digit "." 1*3digit SP
>
>
> ...
>> And I think that the necessity for scripts to be aware of the
>> difference between SMTP rejection and MDN rejection means that
>> they might as well be coded with different actions -- I think that
>> there is no real simplicity benefit to using a single action.
>
> I disagree: just because the text for the two may be different
> doesn't mean I want to be forced to choose which of the two is done.
> I would prefer to be able to say "do an SMTP-level reject if you
> can with _this_ text, else send an MDN with _this_ text".

Yes, I agree that that is exactly what users will tend to want.

>
>
>> The "portable script" argument only works for sites that are
>> supporting English-only (or at best, Western-European-languages-
>> that-can-be-adequately-represented-in-ASCII-only) user communities.
>>
>> For other sites that are already using reject with MDN text that
>> is not ASCII-only, their script already isn't suitable for SMTP
>> reject time interpretation.  Such sites are going to have to care,
>> in their scripts, about the different requirements for reason text
>> for SMTP rejections vs. MDNs.
>
> If specified as I suggested above, these scripts would see *NO*
> change in behavior.

Yes.

Regards,

Kristin

>
>
> Philip Guenther
>