On Jul 7, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
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)
My top post, i.e. this sub-thread.
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
Ok, cool.
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.
Yeah, I think so, too. Unless we exposed the protocol through IMAP
somehow, which I'm still a fan of doing, if possible.
Thanks for clearing up the angle you're approaching this from.
Aaron