[sylpheed:30322] Re: junk filtering not automatic
seth at cql.com
Tue Oct 31 22:35:05 JST 2006
You've totally misinterpreted what I was saying and what I was suggesting, so let me clarify two major points.
1. I was _NOT_ talking about why Hiroyuki hasn't implemented filtering for IMAP. I was talking about implementing the IMAP feature _myself_. I asked whether the feature is being implemented because I don't want to spend time on a feature that someone else is already working on.
2. I said absolutely nothing about the popularity of IMAP, or Exchange, or anything else for that matter.
You misquoted below, as if my statement "I can't see any reason that is the case" applied to your statement about IMAP and exchange. Since I sent my email _before_ you wrote yours', that would have been quite a trick.
What I said is that if _I_ implement IMAP, that has no negative impact on someone else implementing Exchange. I said that because the tone of several comments implied that I wanted to divert resources from something else to handle IMAP.
Again, none of these things is true. I was talking about implementing, _myself_, for IMAP, some features that are currently available for pop.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:41:45 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels at ecc.lu> wrote:
> 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
> I still apply it for myself whenever I build a new version of
> > 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.
> As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
> and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
More information about the Sylpheed