On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
ANOTHER protocol with exactly the same authentication/tls verbiage?
The argument that protocols use a similar authentication mechanism is NOT
an argument that they should be the same protocol.
The SMTP and POP3 AUTH documents I'm working on right now are very very
similar (atleast, for the AUTH commands). Does this mean SMTP and POP
should be the same protocol? Hardly.
Mail notification is not something that is sieve-specific, and shouldn't
be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into what amounts to a
glorified file transfer protocol.
-Rob
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer
PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu *
412.268.7456
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K-
w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----