[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt

2008-07-07 15:03:20

Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on here?"

Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an RFC? Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management system?
Some of both?


On Jul 7, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron(_at_)serendipity(_dot_)cx> wrote:

On Jul 7, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

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:


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.

There are at least a dozen client and server implementations of this
protocol that exist and interoperate and have been doing so for several
years, so on that issue your point is negated by fact.

how many implementations are not IMAP servers?

Further, HTTP is dramatically more complicated than this protocol, and I challenge the notion that its security is actually well understood enough to be applied to other applications without some seriously thorough and careful thinking. The only thing HTTP really buys you is the ability to re- use existing HTTP server frameworks. This is generally not a benefit to authors of email software, since most of us have already written our own server
frameworks for IMAP and SMTP and the like.

yes but the point was predicated on the apparent requirement that this
protocol should be usable beyond the community of email server
creators. yes, anyone who's spent time writing email servers will be
comfortable but that community is small. other users are likely to
find it much easier to reuse an existing protocol.

- robert

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>