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

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

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 16:01 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> On the other hand if the LMTP tool is being called by an MTA that's
> engaged in an SMTP dialog, and the LMTP's 5xx response results in a
> synchronous 5xx SMTP response by the MTA, then the system that combines
> the MTA and LMTP tool is refuse-compliant.  However if then that MTA is
> part of a larger email system that doesn't convey that result
> synchronously, that larger system is no longer compliant with refuse.
> 
> Now: is the Sieve implementation correct, even though bounce messages
> are generated?  I say yes it is, because it is correctly conveying the
> result of the "refuse" action.  The spec should be about correct Sieve
> implementations regardless of their place in the architecture.

I think you are right.  Sieve compliance and overall system architecture
requirements are separate things.  I think both should be addressed in
the spec, though.

the document could benefit from some editorial reorganisation.  in
particular I don't think it flows well to have this TOC:

  1. Introduction                                                   4
  2. Conventions Used in this Document                              4
  3. Discussion of finer points                                     4
  4. SIEVE "reject" extension                                       5
  5. SIEVE "refuse" extension                                       6
  6. Security Considerations                                        8

in my opinion, section 3 should be renamed ("Server architecture
requirements", perhaps) and made a subsection of section 5.

(sorry for not bringing this up before.)
-- 
Kjetil T.