RE: IMAP Server Revisited is a vote called for?

[John Yoost <Jo...@jeld-wen.com>]

So, Is a vote called for? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Serge Knystautas [SMTP:sergek@lokitech.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:12 PM
> To:	james-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject:	Re: IMAP Server Revisited
> 
> 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" <Jo...@jeld-wen.com>
> To: <ja...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 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: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: IMAP Server Revisited is a vote called for?

[Serge Knystautas <se...@lokitech.com>]

Well, I don't know if it's called for, but I'm all in support for making
IMAP work...however that's accomplished.  I never got into the specifics of
how it was implemented to understand how it ought/needs/might be changed.

Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites
http://www.lokitech.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Yoost" <Jo...@jeld-wen.com>
To: <ja...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: RE: IMAP Server Revisited is a vote called for?


> So, Is a vote called for?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Serge Knystautas [SMTP:sergek@lokitech.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:12 PM
> > To: james-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: IMAP Server Revisited
> >
> > 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" <Jo...@jeld-wen.com>
> > To: <ja...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > 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: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org