--On Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:08 AM +1000 Rob Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> True. I hadn't thought about that. This might be worth exploring. | | I think this would be great. Personally I found the whole concept of | having an entirely different protocol to manage sieve scripts a bit | bewildering when a few simple additions to IMAP would have done it. I | guess someone thought it was a sufficiently distinct problem space...
SIEVE can of course be used with POP, so there does need to be a more general script management protocol, unless you want to extend both POP and IMAP.
| Anyway, now that the ANNOTATE extension provides more aribtrary meta-data | abilities, I think being able to set user sieve scripts by it would be | great. Of course interactions with managesieve could be tricky, but | still, I think it's definitely a worthwhile goal.
ManageSIEVE does allow arbitrary named scripts to be stored on the server and activated. Doing that with ANNOTATEMORE is possible but may be complex. It could probably be done by having the user's scripts all listed under a server-level annotation (rather than a per-mailbox annotation) with a specific annotation used to hold the name of the active script.
One other thing that ManageSIEVE does that is useful is syntax checking of a script being uploaded. Whilst Ken did not mention that, ideally storing a script via IMAP should also do a syntax check and prevent the store if the script is bad.
-- Cyrus Daboo
