Subject: Sieve reject action and environment test extension

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:40:22 +0100

After thinking more about comments received regarding the reject draft, 
I would propose that instead of adding options to reject that would make 
it behave "do X if able to reject message over protocol and nothing 
otherwise" (originally proposed by Kejtil, if I am not mistaken), we 
should define proper Sieve environment test extension. The extension 
should define something for testing if Sieve engine is running in 
MTA/MDA, versa running in MDA.

So I would like to poll the WG regarding the following:

1). Does the WG has enough information to decide if this is a reasonable 
suggestion?
2). If the answer to #1 is yes, does the WG want to delay publication of 
reject until after the environment extension is done, or is it Ok to 
submit it to IESG sooner?

Alexey

P.S. If the answer to #2 is "delay reject until after the environment 
draft", then we need to push out the milestone for the reject.
But of course this should have no influence on answers to the 2 
questions mentioned above.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:49:18 +0100

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov writes:
>
>> After thinking more about comments received regarding the reject 
>> draft, I would propose that instead of adding options to reject that 
>> would make it behave "do X if able to reject message over protocol 
>> and nothing otherwise" (originally proposed by Kejtil, if I am not 
>> mistaken), we should define proper Sieve environment test extension. 
>> The extension should define something for testing if Sieve engine is 
>> running in MTA/MDA, versa running in MDA.
>
> That's not equivalent. The equivalent would be "is sieve engine 
> running in MTA/MDA, and do all recipients of this invoke the reject 
> action?". 

Yes, I meant this. Actually both "can reject over protocol" and "running 
in MTA/MDA" can be interesting for Sieve scripts.

> That seems a little odd for an enviroment test extension. If course 
> it's possible to simplify a little and ask e.g. "is sieve engine 
> running in MTA/MDA, and is this a single-recipient message?" which 
> still seems out of scope for an environment test.

I think it is close enough. I would certainly not like to invent a new 
environment-like mechanism just for reject.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:15:44 +0200

> running in MTA/MDA, versa running in MDA.

That's not equivalent. The equivalent would be "is sieve engine running 
in MTA/MDA, and do all recipients of this invoke the reject action?". 
That seems a little odd for an enviroment test extension. If course 
it's possible to simplify a little and ask e.g. "is sieve engine 
running in MTA/MDA, and is this a single-recipient message?" which 
still seems out of scope for an environment test.

> 1). Does the WG has enough information to decide if this is a 
> reasonable suggestion?

Perhaps.

> 2). If the answer to #1 is yes, does the WG want to delay publication 
> of reject until after the environment extension is done, or is it Ok 
> to submit it to IESG sooner?

No.

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:59:33 +0100

>> to submit it to IESG sooner?

Arnt clarified that he means "no, don't delay the reject document".