On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Though I also agree that the sanest way to do this is just with a
folder-wide attribute in IMAP, and leave sieve out of it.
In other words, there are two fairly different models for how to handle
expirations in a message store, and we need to pick the one that makes the
most
sense. Doesn't this sound like something store implementors might want to have
a wee bit of say in?
Yes -- I agree that sieve is not the place to do this. Certainly not at
first, anyway.
-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+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----