Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
IMO it is a method (but not the only one) of producing reliable
relatively bug free software. i think this is a reasonable
pre-requisite for good interoperability. a good suite should aim to
reduce the numbers of poor implementations which claim compatibility
rather than try to ensure that good implementations interoperate
perfectly.
I'm always cautious about extrapolating from limited data - and we haven't seen
all that much use of scripts being moved from one implementation to another.
But to the extent we have, the problems that have shown up have been interop
issues. Unfortunately there are several Sieve implementations out there that
have chosen to ignore the extensions we've defined and roll their own to do
things the base specification does not cover.
is there any (lightweight) way for implementors to let this group know
about the extensions they've rolled? (other than showing on this list)
I think subscribing to the mailing list is a low enough bar, but if
people think that that is too heavyweight, then they may contact me
directly.
But note that such contacts are going to be purely informal in their
nature and have nothing to do with me be the Sieve WG chair. I just
happen to know authors of various Sieve extensions ;-) and also happen
own sieve.info domain.