Re: IMAP extensions needed for SPAM/HAM and WHITE/BLACK listing

[Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:39 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
> The problem with using keywords for this is that you are now
> dependence on your
> client supporting that particular set of keywords and their associated
> semantics. Had we standardize such a keyword set 10 or so years ago
> this
> approach miight have had a chance, but the client base is now too
> large and
> too difficult to update.

Is it really too late? We're making an request to process a particular
message through the site's "learning" filters, i.e. this is explicit
request to have the server take action on the message. I don't that
behaviour is implied by any of the current schemes floating around.

I don't see how it could hurt to standardize a pair of new keywords (as
I suggested in my previous message) with this behaviour documented. It
lets the user request specific identified behaviour from the server; the
existing keywords are all private switches for client behaviour, in my
experience, so the new keyword behaviour would be complimentary to
what's already out there.

--lyndon