Yeah. About that...
Sam, I too would be interested in hearing if you had after all decided to work on this following the previous thread, or whether it's still something you choose not to implement.
I'm mostly just curious. No pressure or anyth-- well, maybe a teeny-weeny bit of pressure, since I _would_ like to see it -- but hey, you're doing all this for free... so a big, fat "no pressure" from me. :-)
Basically, I'd just like to know what your stance is after the close of
No, I haven't. Any implementation of client-defined keywords must have:
* Fast retrieval/storage of all keywords set for a particular message
* Fast retrieval/storage of all messages that have a particular keyword set
The amount of effort needed to implement client-defined keywords that meet the above requirements is not worth the limited benefit for the small number of clients that make use of the client-defined keyword extension.
That's not to say that I'll never have a crack at it. Perhaps at some point in the future, when I have nothing better to do, and plenty of time to burn. But it's not in the cards right now.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
