[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-07-07 15:52:32

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

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

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.