MBOX-Line: From johannes at sipsolutions.net  Fri Jul  7 04:51:46 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] multifolder notification
In-Reply-To: <1152175506.4995.51.camel@localhost>
References: <1152175506.4995.51.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <1152273106.15068.44.camel@localhost>

Hi,

Alexey, for whatever stupid reason I forgot to CC you, if you aren't on
imap-protocol please see the original text here:
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/2006-July/000228.html


I notice that I didn't really ask any question just posted a few
statements. I realise that p-imap is probably going to refer to this
draft for the in-band notification it wants, but I think this should be
usable even without all of p-imap.

I suggest to add something like I described (one of the options ranging
from low to high complexity) to this, and making p-imap refer only to
the part of this that clarifies the untagged responses. I'd be willing
to help with such a document once we can somehow get to a conclusion as
to what kind of complexity is wanted/needed.

What are other people's opinions on this? Do you think this is useful? A
waste of time? Is a whole new strategy better?

Thanks,
Johannes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 845 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20060707/14933251/attachment.sig>
