Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter
"Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com> Fri, 01 October 2004 17:00 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i91H0TtY042190; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:00:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i91H0TfY042189; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mv.mv.com (osmium.mv.net [199.125.85.152]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with SMTP id i91H0PIC042180 for <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:00:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mem@mv.mv.com)
Received: (qmail 22960 invoked by uid 101); 1 Oct 2004 13:00:28 -0400
From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:00:28 -0400
To: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Cc: ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, sah@428cobrajet.net, hardie@Qualcomm.Com
Subject: Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter
Message-ID: <20041001170028.GB5852@osmium.mv.net>
References: <01LF92HCN3OA00005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01LF92HCN3OA00005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: owner-ietf-mta-filters@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-mta-filters.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:13:41PM -0700, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote: > (2) Produce updated sieve relational (RFC 3431), subaddress (RFC 3598), > spamtest/virustest (RFC 3685), and copy extension specifications, The "copy extensions specifications" being "draft-degener-sieve-copy" ? Why is it listed in (2) and not in (3)? (not that it really matters I guess, just wanted to make sure it's included...) Also the "draft-daboo-sieve-include" draft is not mentioned (which is OK with me -- I didn't care for the include draft the way it was but think that some kind of include facility is important). I'm assuming it's left out because of the lack of "willingness to implement" that you said later, but again, just pointing out that it's not there. My only other comment is about the rapid schedule on the variables draft- I had some thoughts that would probably not be appropriate if the draft is to be sent through at this rate. -mm-
- -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter ned.freed
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Cyrus Daboo
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Mark E. Mallett
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Cyrus Daboo
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Mark E. Mallett
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Cyrus Daboo
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Jutta Degener
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter ned.freed
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter ned.freed
- Re: -01 revision of proposed sieve WG charter Mark E. Mallett