MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 17:22:25 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Imants Cekusins <imantc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would
 it be different?
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6t=B-buGCWwME5N6T6xEvr_aPpQVVK70GBNm2WgAa8oBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com> <54FBF289.3010202@psaux.com>
	<7164.1425831184@parc.com>
	<1425907661.1215497.237833469.1EDA571D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<6506.1425915329@parc.com>
	<B03452330F6149E180E449A493F28C2B@gmail.com>
	<CAP1qinZdV1LW6XiWfqfk2A+TC6HsYsAWtT-KSffTNdOFqG_Tjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7782A916-12BB-488C-BD57-697FDB5D47E2@orthanc.ca>
	<CAP1qinY-d_fpmfwJ=04GUZhAnkZpPxzwMGfVdn8--4z=tJT5_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B79CBCA4E66D446690A5A91A7A88BA48@gmail.com>
	<CABa8R6t=B-buGCWwME5N6T6xEvr_aPpQVVK70GBNm2WgAa8oBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1qinYLpZmTnrdpKpq2Lrvk+zDAw7b-02N9pY9Qm6aCz1cG9Q@mail.gmail.com>

> with LITERAL we already skip through the larger data pieces

yes Literal with IMAP and BDAT would be good examples to follow.
However because standards allow various combinations in syntax, all
these need to be taken care of in every server implementation.

these features made perfect sense back in the day however things moved
on quite a bit since '90s.

why not make the format as simple as possible to prepare, deliver and
display - given the advances in technology?

maybe even give an extra thought to preventing spam - if this is possible..

