On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron(_at_)serendipity(_dot_)cx>
wrote:
Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on
here?"
i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or
another that gmail has helpfully hidden)
Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an RFC?
if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an
existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object?
it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC
is not quality but compatibility
Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management
system?
Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol
compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that
an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not
adopt the IMAP style.
- robert