MBOX-Line: From Pidgeot18 at verizon.net  Wed May 18 17:16:58 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Beat up on Gmail
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimVNPwLV4gJ+aYCOGyDd-BN_Ka4PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimVNPwLV4gJ+aYCOGyDd-BN_Ka4PA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD4617A.8040001@verizon.net>

On 05/18/2011 05:36 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> I think this is a difference of opinion and not of fact. Obviously
> Gmail and IMAP have different models of a mailbox, and our
> implementation had to bridge these two models.  You're implying that
> we should have had folders which had no analogue in the web interface,
> and we should have exposed IMAP labels as keywords and somehow solved
> the same problem that this thread was asking about, perhaps as base32
> encoded keywords.
My experience over the past several years has been that people who use 
email clients instead of webmail tend to be a more overly conservative 
bunch of people than those who do not use them. In that vein, the people 
who would be accessing Gmail over IMAP would probably have preferred the 
traditional folder model over Gmail's label concepts; I remember my 
disappointment to have discovered that my "normal" email usage model 
just didn't well with Gmail's implementation (what? delete doesn't 
actually delete the mail?)

> No client our users actually used would have done
> anything with the keywords,
If this information were made public, I'm sure knowledgeable people 
would have asked for some kind of standardization in this regard.

P.S. Gmail is not the Google product I reserve special ire for... that 
would be Google Groups. But that is a rant well off-topic for this, er, 
mailing list.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth


