[imp] ingo (imp) filter question

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:

> Quoting Jeff Tucker <jeff at jltnet.com>:
>
> > OK, I understand. My users are complaining about this behavior since this
> > isn't the way it used to work. We've removed working functionality with
> > this.
>
> I have to agree - runtime filters are different from sieve, procmail, et. al,
> and though having a uniform interface to them makes sense and is great, it
> doesn't make sense to restrict functionality when we don't need to...
>
> -chuck

I think more importantly is the idea of removing previously available
functionality.  If the old IMP filters worked one way, and ingo was supposed
to replace them without change to functionality, then we shouldn't change
functionality.  This seems to be what the person who brought this up was
saying, no?

At the same time, I ackowledge there were quirks in the old IMP filters
which caused problems, and needed work-arounds.  This may be a problem for
ingo to (not sure).  If so, then only if these problems were significant
enough should they be considered reason to remove existing functionality.

--
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Why get even? Get odd!