On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The aim of this document is to document some common [IMAP4] keywords > for the purpose of improving interoperability between different IMAP > mail clients. The document both documents some keywords already in > use, as well as introduces several new ones.
Is there a strong reason for $Spam to be a private-only keyword instead of an 'either' keyword. For example, in a shared mailbox it may in fact be useful for the same definition of spam to be applied across all users. I'm not sure automatic setting of $Important given a Priority or X-Priority header is reasonable, since those are chosen by the sender and not the recipient. If the recipient wants to accept this header from certain senders, I'm sure their filter can do that for them. Certainly if we want to make this automatic, we definitely want a $NotImportant or similar to prevent it from being reflagged every time. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
