Subject: Re: Sieve extensions

From: "Stan Bailes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:30:19 -0800

Ned Freed <[email-masked]> writes:

>> It seems to me that it should be possible for the FA to perform a simple
>> static analysis of the script when it's submitted.  No 'require' needed.
>> If the script uses any extensions which the FA doesn't support, it gets
>> rejected.
>
>I agree -- this seems to be to be the right way to do it.
>
>The trick, of course, is to insure that script submission results in this
>sort of analysis being done.

I might point out that the mind-set that "a user will only ever use
a single server" and "the client should know what extensions the server
supports" is likely to result in implementations which don't perform
this check.

Stan

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jan 1998 14:30:05 -0500

> From: "Stan Bailes" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:30:19 -0800

> supports" is likely to result in implementations which don't perform

Actually, even without extensions, the "user had better not make a typo
because it will cost them their mail" seems to make it likely that any
implementation worth its salt will do this check.

-- 
                                          Tim Showalter [email-masked]