Re: List of open issues with Sieve reject draft (draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-02.txt)

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:38 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:08:47PM +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > one other option is to make it explicit with different scripts for the
> > two situations.
> 
> Or..  a good use for that "mode" variable, so the script can tell the
> circumstance under which it is being executed.

I think this is less likely to be made usable in UI editors than my
suggestion (which just requires special ordering of statements, and as
such doesn't _require_ UI support at all).

> Or.. a draft specifying how 'header' et al (anything requiring the
> message to be present) should behave if the message isn't yet there.

yes, I think this needs to made explicit somewhere.

> Or.. a test that will see if the message is available for examination.
> (e.g. via some read-only variable.)

this is just a slight variation of your #1, isn't it?

> But really, a problem is that support for RCPT-TO (and other) scripting
> probably needs more fleshing out anyway, since RCPT-TO wants to see more
> states and more information returned from a script than simply "accept"
> or "reject."  To me, this suggests having a separate scripts, or at
> least script fragments, for each mode.

what more information?  you want scripts to be able to return 4xx as
well as 2xx and 5xx?

--

-- 
Kjetil T.