Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sieve-convert-06.txt

On 23/12/2011 15:53, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The latter part of this requirement is obviously explicitly met in Section
>> 2.1. However, I miss an explicit statement about whether or not the new
>> "convert" action cancels the implicit keep. Although it should be quite
>> obvious and the examples provide various hints in the correct direction, I
>> think an explicit sentence is in order.
> A fair suggestion.  I will extend the last paragraph of section 2.1
> when we go into AUTH48 (or Pete can put in an RFC Editor note now):
>
> OLD
>     Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
>     in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
>     are performed before any implicit keep.
>
> NEW
>     Because the implicit keep (see Section 2.10.2 of [RFC5228]), if it is
>     in effect, acts on the final state of the message, all conversions
>     are performed before any implicit keep.  The "convert" actions
>     themselves have no effect on the implicit keep status.
+1.

_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve