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

[Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I have no desire to argue against my own proposal! sorry if I
> misunderstood the tenor of some comments to this suggestion.

> The original posting asked about two things

> 1) spam/ham

> 2) white/black

> so far, people seem to be focussing on 1). I acknowledge problems with
> 1), I appreciate that people are trying to address 1) as a possibility.

> I asked about 2). I asked you if, ignoring 1), it was possible or
> plausible to send white/black information about sender, if 1) was hard
> or intractable.

Of course it's possible, but this has no business being in IMAP. IMAP is a
message access protocol, not an address handling protocol. It is also already
quite complex, and extending its function to include what amountss to a
specialized address book capability is a really bad idea IMO.

In fact a pretty good case can be made that it's inappropriate to use 
IMAP for spam/ham classification, but at the spam/ham classification is
intrinsicly tied to messages in the store. The same cannot be said for
address white and blacklisting.

> Does that make more sense? I do realize white/black listing is a
> different PROBLEM to spam/ham marking, but neither of them currently
> have support directly in imap, and I imagine both of them would use
> IMAP extensions to pass information client-server.

The place where I'd like to see white and black listing done is in CARDDAV, not
IMAP.

				Ned