Re: [Kolab-devel] Thoughts about an optional alternative to Guam

On 11.11.2016 13:06, Timotheus Pokorra wrote:
>> In a dream world this would be a broad community survey helping us all
>> understand where and how people use Kolab at home or in their work.
> So we could start collecting questions (perhaps on a different thread).
> And then use SurveyMonkey or an alternative.

+1

>>> I have attached a patch.
> 
>>> We probably cannot submit the patch upstream,
>> 
>> Not without making it rather more generic, no.
> I wrote to the Cyrus mailing list, and got a response.
> Bron suggested a more generic approach, not basing it on the Client
> ID, but clients using a special LIST call.
> https://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/cyrus-devel/2016-November/003928.html

Making client-specific additions to the IMAP protocol feels even more 
dirty to me. It means making (and relying on the proper functioning of) 
server-specific calls in each and every client. It also means setting a 
meaning for something like "hidden", and hoping it never expands in 
scope or is used elsewhere by another project?

It is no different than http server X making extensions to HTTP, and 
then baking those changes into that same vendor's web browsers. It's one 
of the things that made the web a horror-show, and IMAP doesn't need 
help further down that path imho.

So -1 from me for that suggestion.

-- 
Aaron Seigo