On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Michael Haardt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 10:41:06AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > implicit_keep = {false|true}
> >
> > That seems OK. Meaning "if nothing is done don't/do do a keep".
>
> Executing an implicit keep does not mean "nothing is done". It's
> like "there was no significant delivery".
Fine. If that's the Sieve culture, I'm happy with it.
> To me, a keep is a keep is a keep, implicit or explicit. I don't like
> options to break RFC compliance, either, but features specific to Exim
> could be put into extensions specific to Exim. I suggested an extension
> "vnd.exim.route" in another mail. If a script requires that, it is
> obvious that it is not going to work anywhere else. If a script doesn't,
> a user can be sure what it does.
I agree that there should be something in the Sieve filter that states
that it is expecting non-standard behaviour. However, it seems that
people are not all convinced that it actually *is* non-standard.
I don't want to be involved in the argument, but I'm happy to
advise/help on whatever implementation is agreed.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
