This is an argument opposing the proposal to have the IETF's IESG make
draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-07 a Proposed Standard (i.e. RFC).
Sieve is widely used for email processing; it competes with procmail and
other rules-processing systems.
My reason for opposing -07 and drafting and support
Hi Matthew,
--On September 10, 2008 3:13:33 PM -0700 Matthew Elvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Lisa D reported being told: "There is strong WG consensus behind [-07]".
> Lisa D specifically claimed the WG chairs indicated there was. CHAIRS:
> Can you each please confirm that you stated that th
Matthew Elvey writes:
> If a system implementing the specs we're working on works on a
> store-and-forward basis, then it MUST NOT MISLEAD, i.e. LIE TO ITS
> USERS by claiming to support the enhanced standard we are writing.
> -07 allows an implementation to mislead its users by claiming to
> s
Hi.
A little additional perspective on this from someone who has
(deliberately) not been active in the SIEVE effort. Cyrus has
alluded to some of this, but the real constraint is with SMTP,
not SIEVE, and should be addressed in the SMTP context.
The issue of NDN blowback has come up repeatedly
I had hoped to be able to stay out of this discussion, but repeated references
to me and to Sun's Sieve implementation, many of them inaccurate and some
fairly disparaging, have created a situation where it seems I have no choice
but to respond.
I tried writing a point by point response to Mr. Elv
