[Admin] hosting the UBF-in-CL project

[Miles Egan]

erik-nittin at 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