MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Wed Aug 22 14:13:42 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:40 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Private FETCH items
In-Reply-To: <22D7E33A-FD12-4B76-8240-89A4690A03B6@orthanc.ca>
References: <46CC88EE.5040500@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<22D7E33A-FD12-4B76-8240-89A4690A03B6@orthanc.ca>
Message-ID: <29508.1187817223.002157@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Wed Aug 22 20:27:15 2007, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> What's a GUID?
> 
> 
Past participle of the verb "to gooey".


> But overall I guess I have to question why it's necessary to burden 
>  the protocol with this just because somebody wrote some broken 
> code.   I have done an awful lot of server migrations over the 
> years and I  have never yet come up against the problem this is 
> trying to detect.  I realize you intend this as private data, but 
> once it's in the wild,  it will get used, for better and worse.

I can understand why adding private fetchable data would be in some 
way useful, though, irrespective of this particular case.

I'd personally opt for an X- prefix, at the very least. X-CMU- might 
be better. Then you have X-CMU-UID, X-CMU-CRC, X-CMU-STATSIZE, 
perhaps.

Note that I've proposed "CRC" instead of explicitly naming MD5, 
partly in case people are tempted to use it in clients, and partly to 
stop the flurry of emails you'll otherwise get telling you that MD5 
is insecure.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

