Mark Crispin wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Dan Karp wrote: > >> ... removing the FROM, TO, and CC sorts from the draft and >> publishing it as SORT=BASE. Then any existing server implementation >> could advertise both SORT and SORT=BASE, indicating that they >> support both the published RFC as well as the 3 deprecated address >> sorts. > > I see no reason to remove/deprecate the FROM, TO, and CC sorts. > > You have presented no reason other than your dislike of their > definition. The provision of FROM, TO, and CC sorts in no way blocks > future extensions that offer other forms of sorting these (and other > fields). > > I see abundant reason not to do so. > > SORT is implemented by at least two clients and at least four servers. SORT is implemented by at least 6 servers, as far as I know: <http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/devel/ServerReference.html> + Sun. > All of these would have to change to support the proposed crippled > SORT. Worse, my client would require substantial new, special case > code to restore the functionality lost due to crippled SORT; and after > this work will have worse performance. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf