IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com> Thu, 25 August 2005 19:27 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j7PJR3HE045834; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j7PJR3Sv045833; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mv.mv.com (osmium.mv.net [199.125.85.152]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id j7PJR2Lk045825 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com)
Received: (qmail 55762 invoked by uid 101); 25 Aug 2005 15:27:01 -0400
From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:27:01 -0400
To: Matthew Elvey <matthew@elvey.com>
Cc: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no>, IETF MTA Filters List <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-00.txt
Message-ID: <20050825192701.GD20708@osmium.mv.net>
References: <20050818190929.GM21465@osmium.mv.net> <4305B817.9070503@isode.com> <20050819174803.GB17079@osmium.mv.net> <430895AB.1090603@isode.com> <430A2A51.6080103@elvey.com> <20050823180817.GO26861@osmium.mv.net> <430B7743.5030004@elvey.com> <20050823200109.GX26861@osmium.mv.net> <1124840196.19646.150.camel@chico.njus.no> <430BC1FB.3030107@elvey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <430BC1FB.3030107@elvey.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:40:27PM -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
> 
> Misleading the user into thinking that he's reducing bounces is 
> unacceptable.  I am extremely firmly opposed to any changes that allow 
> refuse and reject to have the exact same results from the users/victim's 
> viewpoint.  The AU's email system is compliant or it isn't.  Saying the 
> system is compliant when just a piece theoretically could be, but when 
> in actual use, the system isn't compliant makes no sense.  It seems 
> we'll have to go for rough consensus, noting this as a point of 
> disagreement.
> (Mark, have I convinced you? It wasn't clear from your last email.)

Not really.  I understand your point of view, though, and agree that
refusal is a good goal, but with a different outlook on the specifics of
getting there.

Anyway, nothing new for me to add.. 

mm

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status