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

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 15:06 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> Basically:
> 
>    reject [:discard/:keep/:notify] "reason";
> 
> where with no tagged argument, 5xx at SMTP time is done if possible, and
> if not possible, a site-imposed default action would be taken (which
> might be either "discard" or "keep" or "send a notification").

I would prefer an option to make reject "stop" if successful, so you
could simply do:

   reject :refuse :stop "Don't send e-mail to this address";
   fileinto "INBOX.old-address";
   stop;

seems easier than to add all possible actions as options to reject :-).
clearly this requires a small change to the following text:

   Implementations SHOULD prohibit reject when used with other
   actions.

a reject without :refuse would always be successful, since it does best
effort: SMTP time or send bounce message.

we might not need a :stop, we could make :refuse work that way always,
but I think it is better to be explicit about it.

> Drawbacks of a unified approach that I can think of:
> 
>  - Any new syntax would have to be enabled via a new capability.  Here,
>    I would say that ' require "refuse"; ' would enable the new syntax,
>    but the new behavior (i.e., of attempting to turn away the message at
>    SMTP time, with site-specific fallback action) would not require the
>    new capability.  The new behavior would simply be specified in this
>    draft.

right.  I don't see how this is a drawback?  a capability which implies
another would be a first for Sieve, but I think it is a natural thing to
do.

>  - If a Sieve script is invoked when "RCPT TO" is seen, various other
>    Sieve facilities are not available (header tests, fileinto, etc).
>    There may be a need for the script writer to be aware of this.  But I
>    think that can be solved in ways outside the script itself, and this
>    problem is also present in the other approach as well.

this problem isn't specific to the unified approach.

> In the event that I am just whistling in the wind here, I also have
> comments on the actual draft... see next rock.

well, I agree with your views, at least.
-- 
Kjetil T.