Re: How to get implementors involved (was Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?)

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

On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMO it is a method (but not the only one) of producing reliable
>>>> relatively bug free software. i think this is a reasonable
>>>> pre-requisite for good interoperability. a good suite should aim to
>>>> reduce the numbers of poor implementations which claim compatibility
>>>> rather than try to ensure that good implementations interoperate
>>>> perfectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm always cautious about extrapolating from limited data - and we
>>> haven't seen
>>> all that much use of scripts being moved from one implementation to
>>> another.
>>> But to the extent we have, the problems that have shown up have been
>>> interop
>>> issues. Unfortunately there are several Sieve implementations out there
>>> that
>>> have chosen to ignore the extensions we've defined and roll their own to
>>> do
>>> things the base specification does not cover.
>>>
>>
>> is there any (lightweight) way for implementors to let this group know
>> about the extensions they've rolled? (other than showing on this list)
>>
>
> I think subscribing to the mailing list is a low enough bar, but if people
> think that that is too heavyweight, then they may contact me directly.

i did ask a few people a few months ago but they declined. my
experiences in this group have not been positive enough for me to be
to be able to offer them any encouragement to join.

i have some private correspondence which i may be able to get
permission to forward to you.

> But note that such contacts are going to be purely informal in their nature
> and have nothing to do with me be the Sieve WG chair. I just happen to know
> authors of various Sieve extensions ;-) and also happen own sieve.info
> domain.

ok

- robert