Re: Treat as a WGLC: draft-martin-managesieve-10.txt

["Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Stephan Bosch <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>

<snip>

> Ok, I did some preliminary implementation of the new commands. Regarding the
> NOOP command I have only one (nitpicking) remark. The managesieve
> specification explicitly lists which commands are valid before
> authentication. However, by introducing extensions this becomes a little
> more sketchy. The RENAMESCRIPT command is clearly not useful before
> authentication. However, implementors with IMAP experience might think of
> allowing NOOP before authentication, because in IMAP the NOOP command  may
> be issued before authentication.

failing to allow NOOP as may be expected violates the principle of
least surprise.

is there any reason for this?

in general, this protocol seems more than a little peculiar. it's
close in syntax to IMAP but has enough differences for IMAP
implementors to be surprised and confused by the differences.

is there any reason for this choice?

- robert