Message-Id: <wDKd7ZngCu6pB/pwWdgt9g.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:22:00 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org
Subject: Re: Strong Opposition due to spam backscatter. Re: Last Call:
 draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 and -08 (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and
 Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cdaboo@apple.com>,
 Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, asrg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
References: <20080727120256.E26073A68B7@core3.amsl.com>
 <g6i7at$je$1@ger.gmane.org> <01MXNCRX5OM200007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
 <48C8468D.2030804@elvey.com>
In-Reply-To: <48C8468D.2030804@elvey.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk


Matthew Elvey writes:
> If a system implementing the specs we're working on works on a=20
> store-and-forward basis, then it MUST NOT MISLEAD, i.e. LIE TO ITS=20
> USERS by claiming to support the enhanced standard we are writing.=20
> -07 allows an implementation to mislead its users by claiming to=20
> support enhanced functionality when it does no such thing.

Why not? My code (I implemented -07 a few weeks ago) advertises support=20
for the standard even if it may or may not provide enhanced=20
functionality. I think that's fine. It does provide in-protocol=20
rejection when possible, and the rules have very pleasant consequences.=20
Most importantly, it's possible to make system configuration changes=20
that affect system's ability to to in-protocol rejection without=20
invalidating anyone's sieve script.

> That would simply be dishonest.

It's just another RFC about best-effort something something. There are=20
many others already, so most implementers are familiar with the=20
concept. And AFAICT, implementers generally implement a best effort,=20
not behave dishonestly.

(I read some more of this monster mail, but IMHO it degenerates into a=20
pure rant around the point where Aaron Stone is first called =ABthe=20
author of -07=BB. Not worth answering.)

Arnt