Re: Moving forward ...

Jesse Dougherty wrote:
>>
>>This is bad. I'd much prefer a system where my filter can
>>easily ignore anything done by other filters. Let the user
>>decide how to
>>integrate all the various recommendations.
> 
> 
> Yes, but the headers have to express this information in a way that
> lotsa different rule systems can understand them.  (from procmail to
> simple header pattern matching)
> 

And you thought this is going to be easy :) One of the goals here is to 
figure out whether there are enough commons rules across the filtering 
world that can be standardized. For example, something along the lines 
of SIEVE can be used for this.

One of the ways we can do this is to be able to provide for multiple 
rule systems in the headers. For example:

"Filter-Results: rule-system-type=sieve; results=xxx"

We can specify an IANA registry for rules, plus some commons rules as 
part of the standard.

Yakov