Mark Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > We can't standardize Junk and NotJunk; they are in the wrong namespace. > > As $ convention was never documented, I don't see this as a problem. > > If both clients use the keywords in the same way, Junk/NoJunk versa > > $Junk/$NoJunk is just an aestheticchange. > > It is more than esthetics. > > How do you know that "Junk" isn't my keyword to classified messages > related to a particular type of boat found in Asia? Or that it doesn't > classify my "junk" (as in an affectionate term for miscellaneous messages > that I want to keep for various reasons, e.g. jokes, etc.) as opposed to > spam. > > They are indeed in the wrong namespace.
In the absence of a document that defines "$" prefix convention, this is a moot point. > > Besides, AOL IMAP server supports Junk/NoJunk and doesn't support storing of > > arbitrary keywords. > > I would not consider AOL to be a shining example of standardization; nor > of a model to follow, especially having installed AOL DSL for a relative > (his insistance) and seeing for myself how AOL spits on standards and > interoperability. I was just saying that there are existing implementations. Alexey __________________________________________ Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel IETF standard related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________
