Re: Duplicate test
Stephan Bosch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mta-filters |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/18/2013 8:22 PM, Ned Freed wrote: >> 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. Exactly. Perhaps I should mention these considerations more explicitly in the draft? Regards, Stephan. _______________________________________________ sieve mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve