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

[Anil SRIVASTAVA <Anil.Srivastava@xxxxxxx>]

On 2009-07-07/20:02 [-0700], ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx [Ned Freed] wrote:

> 
> > 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 
> useIMAP 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.
>

+1 

Anil
 
> 				Ned
> 

_______________
Anil SRIVASTAVA  |  anil.srivastava@xxxxxxx  | Sun Microsystems, Inc