Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, Mark Keasling wrote:
> ... lots deleted
>
> This is a problem. But there is a chance that if you create a good enough
> convention, others may choose to interoperate with you.
>
> After all, there is no guarantee that they'll use the same mailbox name
> for a Trash mailbox either, or have the same semantics for that file.
> Consider how people disagree about the semantics of postponed
> messages/draft mailboxes.
It seems to me like both the KISS principle and Occam's razor argues for
a Trash mailbox as being MUCH simpler than what you're proposing, and
would be MUCH simpler to get people to agree on.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
