Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]

OK, so we had several folks indicating interest in contributing to the 
rules work - let's get staretd, we're still behind.

We need to get closure on the Sieve issue, i.e. might sieve with 
possible extensions provide a solution? If not, why not? If not, we 
need to get back to defining an own language - starting with what we 
had on "P".

So, where are the interested folks willing to get rolling?

Thanks,
   Markus

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.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Markus
>