On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 01:22:11PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> Warning: opinions, little to do with qmail or maildir.
Indeed. I should start up a list just to discuss this.
> > As much as I would like scheduling, this is an "mailbox"
> > program, which handles email. I believe that proper support
> > for scheduling would add too much to the protocol, given that
> > this is supposed to be "simple".
>
> True. I was attacking the question not from the "what simple things
> can we add" POV, but the "if you were designing a replacement, what needs
> would you try to fulfill?"
That is also my thinking, but my key phrase is "desigining a *simple*
replacement".
> A good calendaring system requires that users receive requests for
> meetings and can answer them, and have trouble screwing them up (i.e.
> putting the metainfo in the subject line is easy to screw up). Email is the
> ideal medium for this communication, because it meshes well with our
> existing work patterns.
OK, then, how do you see it integrating with email?
> A good page for ACAP is http://asg.web.cmu.edu/acap/. ACAP is
> derived from IMSP; there's an RFC for the latter at
> http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/rfc/imsp.html.
So, then, if there is a defined spec for ACAP, that defines a link
protocol and everything, why should it be added to the mailbox protocol?
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
