Rob Siemborski wrote: > 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.
Probably. It might be better to introduce $Spam.private and $Spam.shared, which are always private/shared. As a user, I would probably would like to now if $Spam is shared or not. Imagine that I've marked a message with $Spam (implemented as shared) and somebody else has a different opinion. (I know, this look exactly like an argument to use ANNOTATE). > 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. Yes, that was my justification for having $NotImportant. The idea is that $Important/$NotImportant is set automatically by the filter/message store using one of the headers and the user can overwrite the value. Alexey __________________________________________ Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel IETF standard related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________
