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

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

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Aaron Stone <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wait, top-post here says, "is there a point to the discussion going on
> here?"

i'm confused: which top post? this top post you're posting now? (or
another that gmail has helpfully hidden)

> Are you suggesting that we not bring managesieve to publication as an RFC?

if the aim is codification of existing practice then since i am not an
existing practioner of this particular protocol, how can i object?

it's been made quite clear to me that this is the priority of this RFC
is not quality but compatibility

> Are you suggested what we can do for a next-generation sieve management
> system?

Alexey Melnikov's comments about a next generation protocol
compatiable with IMAP make a lot more sense to me. it seems to me that
an independent protocol would be much more widely useful if it did not
adopt the IMAP style.

- robert