| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.mta-filters |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
> 2). I found that "the side effect of the test takes force at the end of
> a successful script execution" to be odd/awkward. Maybe we can have an
> explicit action? Or maybe leaving this as is is Ok... Need to think a
> bit more about that.
I'm not wild about this either, mostly because when you do this as two steps
there's a window where overlapping script executions can cause a duplicate to
be missed. Of course locking can be used to prevent this, but given the scale
we operate at any use of locking has to be carefully considered.
That said, the problem where a script goes wonky and ends up marking something
as a duplicate is much more severe, so IMO the draft is handling this the right
way.
tl;dr: Missing a duplicate is preferable to marking a message as a duplicate
incorrectly.
Ned
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve