Subject: Re: Discard vs. DSN

From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:43:35 -0500

At 04:52 PM 3/23/99 -0500, Tim Showalter wrote:
>I would rather have discard be optional than this.  If discard is
>equivalent to reject, it is not discard anymore.  Having two meanings
>for discard is as bad as two meanings for fileinto.

I agree with Matt Wall, discard must be required.  Since reject
is optional, we might see a sieve implementation that supports
neither discard nor reject, unless we state that at least one
of them must be supported.  Making discard optional also creates
havoc with seive script compatibility.  I think we want discard
to mean "do your best to get rid of this message".

Making the user change their seive scripts from "discard" to "reject"
does not help the user at all, they still don't have discard.  Though,
it might make the language purists feel better.

Perhaps, we are trying too hard to cut this supposed "plug-in"
implememtation some slack.  We all seem to agree that it is
very important that a discard does not generate a NDN.  Lets
make it: discard is required and MUST NOT generate a NDN.

This puts the onus on the developer of the "plug-in" to
explain to their users why their sieve implementation is
not quite sieve.

Greg Sereda

---

From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:03:43 -0500

At 02:43 PM 3/23/99 -0800, Randall Gellens wrote:
>So which is it that I haven't implemented: 'discard' or 'reject'? 

I think you have implemented neither discard nor reject.  Some have
stated that a discard that generates a NDN is really reject.  But
while the reject action is optional, the reason text on the reject
action is not.  The user supplied reason must appear in the NDN,
or else it is not reject.  Otherwise, the sender will just see a
generic failure to deliver system error.

Greg Sereda