[sylpheed:30312] Re: junk filtering not automatic

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:19:51 -0500
Seth Kurtzberg <seth at cql.com> wrote:

> I think this is based on a flawed assumption, that implementing IMAP
> would somehow harm an effort to implement exchange.

I certainly did not make that assumption - I merely indicated that in
my opinion IMAP is a small market, why I think this to be the case, and
that (if I'm correct) this explains why the feature has not been
requested often enough to convince Hiroyuki to give it priority.

> I can't see any reason why that is the case.

One of the reasons why IMAP is not receiving much attention is, again
IMHO, that it is not much requested, that the lead developer has
limited time and has to decide what to implement. 

And again, my speculation is that given the effort to port Sylpheed to
Windows, Sylpheed's acceptance and use on Windows is of some concern to
Hiroyuki. And it is my experience and my opinion that the acceptance of
Sylpheed in the typical Windows/Exchange environment would be best
furthered by its ability to interact with Exchange rather than IMAP. 

> However, I detect a substantial amount of feedback here, which says,
> "don't do this."

I didn't read it that way. For what it's worth (and seeing you
replied to my message) my feedback is that if you need it, and you have
both the time and inclination to implement it, you should by all means
go ahead. That's how free software works.

I, for example, wrote a patch to mark cross-posted USENET articles
"read" in all newsgroups when they were read in one of them. For me it
was important, but obviously not for many (maybe not many people use
Sylpheed to read USENET groups, or maybe not many people care about
cross-posted articles) because the patch never made it into the source
tree. 

I still apply it for myself whenever I build a new version of
Sylpheed...

> If the feedback said "well, I personally don't care about it, but it
> would be an enhancement to the tool" that would be one thing.

Well, personally I don't care about it, but it would be an enhancement
for sure.

> So, unless I see some indication that my impression is incorrect,
> I'll move my IMAP filtering and spam handling to a client without
> substantial hostility to the idea of enhancing IMAP.

No hostility (what made you think that?), just no interest. I looked at
IMAP and it didn't suit my purposes, that's all (and it _is_ slow and
unwieldy, but that's another discussion :).

> If I've gotten the wrong impression, I'll be happy to reverse course.

At least as far as I am concerned, you got the wrong impression. 
 
-- 
Stefaan
-- 
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh