Re: [Admin] hosting the UBF-in-CL project

erik-nittin@imeme.net wrote:

I guess I'm being a bit stubborn. I think I see what you mean; you'renot suggesting that we have cl-araneida and cl-sb-sockets, but ratherthat proper names such as RFC 822 should be cl-rfc822 to indicate thatthis is not the proper thing itself but rather an implementation of it. Whatever the popular vote is, I'll go with it.

I definitely prefer ubf over cl-ubf. I think we should use the cl- prefix when it's a cl wrapper of an existing library.

I also strongly dislike the rfcXXX convention. Why not use something like "mime" or "mime-headers". The python module used to be called rfc822 but now it's "email".

miles