--On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
i can see that's a tough choice: codification of existing (possibly
dubious but at least well understood) practice verses the creation of
a better protocol
The situation here is that we are standardizing a protocol which was
already widely deployed. In such cases, it is usually better to avoid
breaking interoperability with the deployed base, especially if the
deployment experience largely shows that the existing protocol works.
Sometimes, there is no way to avoid making a backward-incompatible change
to correct a problem, but I don't think this is such a case.
it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required
for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve
management using the same URI.
That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers,
which I don't think we want to do.
-- Jeff