Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-convert-02.txt
Cyrus Daboo <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mta-filters |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Alexey, --On August 19, 2011 12:42:56 PM +0100 Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now, this doesn't take into account Alexey's comment that he'd like to >> see a runtime error when conversion fails, so I want to push on this: >> What is the use case? Is it more valuable to the use case for a >> failed conversion to crash the script, or for it to just continue? >> The sense I have is that it should continue (which is why I wrote the >> text above). >> > "I've asked you and you ignored me" behavior doesn't seem right in Sieve. > I don't think any other extension does that. > If we really want to have both (strict conversion and "best effort" > conversion), then maybe we should have a tagged argument to signal that. Well the redirect action's failure handling is a bit like that - implementations get to decide what to do: possibly throw an error, create a missing mailbox, file to somewhere else. I am somewhat nervous about the proposal to have a combined action/test command - I'd like to heard from other implementors as to whether this represents a significant problem for them or not. Personally I am OK with taking the redirect approach: error handling is implementation defined (could be one of raise an error, ignore failure, try an alternative best effort conversion instead). -- Cyrus Daboo _______________________________________________ sieve mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve