[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Review comments on draft-martin-managesieve-04.txt

2003-10-21 18:13:14

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 02:18:22AM +0200, Marc Mutz wrote:
Hi Mark,


On Tuesday 21 October 2003 22:44, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:08:41AM -0700, 
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
It was recently mentioned on the imapext list that it is time to
get the managesieve protocol spec moving forward. So I decided to
take a look at the specification as it stands. My comments are as
A few comments:

Thanks for your comments, but I don't think that we should talk about 
new features in managesieve such as those you detailed in this thread 
_now_. That opens all sorts of cans of worms as anyone tries to push 
his or her pet feature.

managesieve is implemented at least in the Cyrus server suite and at 
least Mulberry and KDE have client implementations for this protocol. 
It's not that we start from scratch here. Some things you asked for 
might be nice to have - but as an _extension_. Others, like supporting 
different script languages might never be implemented. And there's 
certainly no room to debate whether size literals are to be used or not 
- they are already.

Hmm- maybe I should have started out by asking what the real draft
status was (as opposed to the "expired" status on the document).  I
understand that some drafts exist to sanctify existing implementations,
others (such as various other sieve drafts out there) to work out how
to do things.  Sounds like this one is the former.  That's kind of a
shame, because what you call "pet features" I, well, don't.  As you
might expect :-)  Not to mention that any call for discussion seems
moot now.

Sorry to hear about the size literals being mandated by an existing
implementation.  It's not a make-or-break thing with me, I just don't
like them.  I'll live.