> 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 think you meant fileinto, not redirect, but the point is made regardless.
> 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.
Not sure this matters since we have no intention of implementing convert,
but this is no problem for our implementation. We actually have a couple of
private extensions that work this way already.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.