Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]

At 15:03 22/02/2005, Markus Hofmann wrote:

>Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
>>I did not see anybody digging in. At this point, I have to wonder if I 
>>am  the only person left interested in the "common rules language" 
>>problem.  Did we lose the momentum and interest on this topic? Does it 
>>make sense to  continue working on rules (regardless of Seive versus P 
>>question)?
>>There were a few folks interested in the topic when the charter was
>>discussed and before various (mostly IETF-imposed) delays put the topic 
>>on  the backburner. Should we assume that those folks lost interest (due 
>>to  delays or any other reason)?
>
>Folks - we need to know if anyone is still interested in this work. 
>Doesn't make sense to drag this along without anyone working on it and 
>without making real progress.
>
>Could anyone interested in the rules language work please speak up, in 
>particular the ones who expressed interest in contributing to the work 
>when we re-charted (don't make me go back into the email archives to dig 
>out the names... :). If we don't hear back, I recommend we fold this activity.

Obviously deeply interested. But before that I need to understand if the 
whole OPES/SMTP makes sense. I fully documented that I do not understand 
anything to the use case draft. The filtering rules are a major part, but 
they can be understood very differently at different location and for 
different purposes.

BTW has somebody a working experience of AskSam and/or an inner knowledge 
of their logic?
I am not familiar with fuzzy filtering either. Is there an IETF work to 
know there?
Thank you.
jfc