Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (Sieve Email Filtering: Reject and Extended Reject Extensions) to Proposed Standard

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Aaron,
>
> (dropping the IETF discussion list from the cc: list)
>
> I think we're good, except on this point:
>
>>> 2.2.  Action reject
>>>
>>> The "reject" action cancels the implicit keep and refuses delivery  
>>> of
>>> a message.  The reason string is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string specifying
>>> the reason for refusal.  Unlike the "ereject" action described  
>>> above,
>>> this action would always favor preserving the exact text of the
>>> refusal reason.  Typically the "reject" action refuses delivery of a
>>> message by sending back an MDN to the alleged sender (see
>>> Section 2.2.1).  However implementations MAY refuse delivery over
>>> protocol (as detailed in Section 2.5), if and only if all of the
>>>
>>> Spencer (clarity): "refuse delivery over protocol" reads roughly  
>>> to  me. is there an adjective for "protocol" that might make this   
>>> sentence clearer? i'm not sure that "over protocol" is even  
>>> required  - is it? if not, you could just delete the two words.
>>
>> The phrase "over protocol", or some equivalent, is crucial because  
>> the meaning of "refuse" is not as clear as anybody has hoped. I  
>> prefer to leave the text as it is.
>
> The great thing about last call review comments is that you can "do  
> the right thing", but ... I may not have been clear, but what I was  
> saying was that I don't know what "refuse delivery over protocol"  
> actually refers to. Is this "refuse delivery over SMTP protocol"?  
> That's all I was asking... I wasn't trying to talk you out of "over  
> protocol", just being a little clearer what you were saying.

Aha, I get what you mean now. Will update the document.

>
> Do the right thing, of course. :-)
>
Thanks :-)

Aaron