On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
--On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
<snip>
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.
not at all :-)
the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i
doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP
would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their
preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a
well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well
understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much
simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol.
- robert