MBOX-Line: From mrc+imap at panda.com  Mon Oct 31 17:06:42 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:47 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] BODY.PEEK[section]<origin.size> FETCH response
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vJGTa+VH-TOgXhCSpX5N1HZTBBqisDhPY9Metz5864JQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8F0DA5FA-FB07-4AFA-9C58-8F0927998343@ghoti.org>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311352000.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<CABa8R6ugaAADsrvaS1Nnau5bi7k9728b+x00NcG1Nbxfk9xwsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311455120.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<CABa8R6vJGTa+VH-TOgXhCSpX5N1HZTBBqisDhPY9Metz5864JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311641160.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Brandon Long wrote:
> When we first released IMAP internally, the overwhelming use case was
> as an adjunct to Gmail Web interface, not as a replacement to the
> client.  That is expected, of course.  But our public usage mimic'd
> this to nearly the extreme.  Now, I'm willing to believe that our
> choices informed the usage in some part, but the overwhelming use case
> of Gmail's IMAP interface is access on mobile devices by people who
> use the Gmail Web interface on the desktop.

That does NOT bolster the claim that the public wants a non-compliant
IMAP implementation that may break their IMAP client.

My experience is that the overwhelming majority of users want their tools
to work. When an IMAP client does not work with Gmail, they will complain
to the IMAP client vendor, not to Google.

> Or arguments I've gotten in on Google+ with our adoring public
> who wanted us to make the usage even more Gmail like, impossible
> though that was to express in the IMAP protocol.

I double that Google+ is representative of the community. Yes, I have a
Google+ account, but after a few times I found it to be pointless (mostly
filled with people desperately trying to convince themselves and others
that it is better than FB) and stopped using it. It's not an FB-killer.

> If we are violating guarantees that cause malfunctions, it would be
> good to know that.

Gmail's IMAP server does so.

These complaints are ongoing and easy to find. The usual answer is always
"Gmail doesn't work well as an IMAP server, don't try to use it as such;
instead use fetchmail to download to a local file and process it locally."

I suggest that you collect these complaints, and one by one fix them.

I did the exercise once upon a time, and came up with a few dozen discrete
issues that was delivered to Google. I don't have list any more. Given my
experience the last time, I will not repeat the effort. You had the
opportunity, you squandered it, not my problem.

It would also be a good idea to contact each of the complainers and ask
for confirmation that the problem is abolished. That's what Google would
do if it cared. I remain unconvinced.

The only use that I have for Gmail is receipts from the Android market.

Speaking of Android, I suppose you know that the Android Mail app is
almost completely useless (embarassingly bad), and that Android users who
do anything but the most casual email must download a third party client
(none of which are particularly good, but at least are usable). Perhaps
you don't care because Android has a separate app for Gmail.

It sure does look like the Microsoft monopolistic behavior; pretend to use
open standards but do things so that other vendors' products do not work
well. So much for "don't be evil".

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

