[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-melnikov-sieve-imapflags-03

2000-09-16 22:10:43
At 10:02 PM -0600 9/16/00, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

 So you like the idea, but you don't like the wording (more precisely the

Yes, I like very much being able to set IMAP flags with Sieve.

I just think the draft should specify what happens when the new commands are used, and leave the underlying implementation alone. I realize you were introducing the global variable concept to help make your point, but I personally think it's better so simply say that this command adds a flag, this command takes away an added flag, etc. If the message is kept, the flags (if any) are also kept. If the message is discarded, the flags have no effect.

 Also, I think the descriptions of 'mark' and 'unmark' are unclear.  They
 should specify exactly what is to happen, and not have so many MAY do this
 or that statements.

Barry originally said that draft is too tied to IMAP. mark/unmark allows to specify
 importance of the message without enforcing the way how it is implemented.

I think it makes it harder to interoperate, especially since this affects the email client. Perhaps what we need instead is to give up using IMAP flags for this, and use Annotations instead. Sounds like the message/priority is needed here.

 I like the idea of setting flags independently of 'fileinto' or
 'keep'.  I'd really much rather not have 'fileinto'/'keep' be a way of
 setting flags.

As I've heard voices from both sides (from people who want to use separate commands
 or to use tagged arguments) I can't make judgment which way is preferred.
 I will have both in next draft and hopefully I will hear more comments.

I think the draft should make it clear that this is an open issue: to have separate commands, bundle with keep/fileinto, or both.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>