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

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

On 7/8/08, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>
>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 09:40:11 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <robertburrelldonkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --On Monday, July 07, 2008 08:27:59 PM +0100 Robert Burrell Donkin
>>>> <robertburrelldonkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> it seems unfortunate that this means that a separate port is required
>>>>> for sieve management. a compatible extension to IMAP would allow sieve
>>>>> management using the same URI.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That makes the assumption that sieve scripts live only in IMAP servers,
>>>> which I don't think we want to do.
>>>
>>> not at all :-)
>>>
>>> the function contained in this protocol is really very trivial. i
>>> doubt that any implementator using a storage mechanism other than IMAP
>>> would bother creating an implementation rather than just reusing their
>>> preferred protocol at the application level. for example, HTTP is a
>>> well known protocol whose secruity characterics are know well
>>> understood. sieve maintainance using RESTful HTTP would be much
>>> simpler than creating an implementations of this novel protocol.
>>
>> Only if you have a web server and a bunch of related infrastructure
>> lying around.  If you're implementing sieve support in an MTA, such
>> that admins or even user can provide sieve scripts to be run as
>> incoming mail is being accepted (rather than waiting until it hits the
>> mail store), then you may not have the luxury of requiring people who
>> want to use the new feature to run web servers on their inbound MX's.
>
> Sun has implemented Sieve in SMTP server and are in the process of
> implementing ManageSieve protocol.
>

Still a classic mail server, though. Nothing more exotic.
Robert