On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:36:11PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > 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.
Things were different until the ":copy" extension was added, which is
used to mark what the Exim filter regards as significant delivery as
insignificant. In Sieve speak, this extension does not cause the
implicit keep flag to be reset.
The Exim filter and Sieve are very similar in concepts and facilities,
despite being apperantly independent developments. Just out of
curiousity: When was the Exim filter developed and first documented?
> However, it seems that
> people are not all convinced that it actually *is* non-standard.
Well, everybody interested in discussing Sieve and RFC compliance of
implementations or modifications is invited to the IETF mailing list:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/index.html
That's the place where people know RFC 3028 by heart. :-)
Michael
