ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How to get implementors involved (was Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?)

2009-01-14 11:42:32

On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.

i did ask a few people a few months ago but they declined. my
experiences in this group have not been positive enough for me to be
to be able to offer them any encouragement to join.

i have some private correspondence which i may be able to get
permission to forward to you.

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.

ok

- robert

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: How to get implementors involved (was Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?), Robert Burrell Donkin <=