MBOX-Line: From tjs at psaux.com  Mon Oct 29 18:27:40 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Tim Showalter <tjs@psaux.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:40 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] re: GMail
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710291616560.3152@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
References: <alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710241938220.520@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
	<fc2c80ae0710270911o23f0b366g942b2956ac3fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710270924180.4788@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
	<5202.1193523708.069559@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
	<alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710271708460.11181@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<1193531029.25921.561.camel@hurina>
	<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710271748490.204456@Ningyo-no-Mori.Panda.COM>
	<RMRLrFbL0dA92HCVkk6Cgw.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
	<alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710280923190.11181@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<d1klUHoFkFbXOtQmbn1Bww.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
	<47263322.7040702@psaux.com> <1193689139.25921.618.camel@hurina>
	<472653EE.9080102@psaux.com>
	<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710291450130.3152@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
	<47266943.2010409@psaux.com>
	<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710291616560.3152@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
Message-ID: <4726888C.6010409@psaux.com>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> I think that there is much more opposition to adding to a base 
> specification than to a service level.  A new base specification 
> purported kills the previous one; whereas a service level might get 
> ignored at a particular point.
> 
> Sometimes how you call things does matter!

Well, I think that's true, but it's clear that base specifications get 
ignored, too.

I don't have a feel for which is the easier path, but I am fearful of 
the work involved in IMAP5, because I think it will bring out the trolls.

If we were to add a single client-side capability, we could provide a 
general mechanism.  I think it's desirable if we encourage client 
capabilities to be bundled, but I think requiring it is a mistake.

I don't believe IMAP5 would provide this flexibility.

Tim

