I'm all for it. My help has been sporadic for the past year, and Charles similarly (Charles being the major author of the IMAP code). The IMAP code will make additional demands on the repositories, but I'd rather extend what we have than develop a separate set of repositories (I'd also like to see NNTP do the same, but don't have time and I can't even get the "main" repositories reliable :)
Also I'm getting more determined to move the IMAP code to a proposal as it's not ready, it's not getting active development, and it's confusing about what features James currently offers. Ok, back to this pop3 repository problem... Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Yoost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:05 PM Subject: IMAP Server Revisited > All, > > I have been looking at the existing IMAP Server code for some time now, and > also RFC2060. > > At the risk of pissing someone off, I propose the following: > > I have started to rewrite the IMAP server portion. > > I want to take a different approach than was taken in the past. > > I would like to include all the functionality up-to the point that I can > using the existing generic repository (file or DB). > > When I get to the point of adding functionality that is not currently > supported by the repository I will request (or add myself) this > functionality to the repository code. > > In this way functionality such as ACL mailboxes, could be added as people > using clients that use this extention need it. (maybe never :)) > > The current version of the IMAP server has a ton of code to support it's own > repository. > > > Comments, flames, or Agreement requested. > > -John Yoost --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
