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

[Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

Well, you have two choices: Try to extend an existing ad-hoc keyword
usage scheme that has some deployment but doesn't have quite these semaantics
currently, or start from scratch with a fresh keyword set that has zero
deployment and is unlikely to displace any of the ad-hoc schemes.

This choice is why I view using keywords as at a minimum suboptimal.

> 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.

I on't think it would hurt either, the question is whether it will actually
accomplish something.

				Ned