MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Mon Mar 26 13:04:28 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:38 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP features: which clients use them? 
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.83.0703260941330.19514@pangtzu.panda.com>
References: <07Mar20.114847pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<07Mar24.114611pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<7000.1174904408.192915@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
	<07Mar26.080619pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<6000.1174926756.434557@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
	<alpine.OSX.0.83.0703260941330.19514@pangtzu.panda.com>
Message-ID: <6000.1174935868.118834@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Mon Mar 26 17:43:34 2007, Mark Crispin wrote:
> The sooner SSL-only clients are abolished, the happier I would be.

Absolutely, but while it's previously been largely [perceived as] a 
matter of taste, there's a fairly nasty issue lurking when the 
IMAP/URLAUTH and ESMTP/BURL extensions are considered. (There's also 
similar-ish issues with MAILBOX-REFERRALS, but these are rarely 
implemented by clients - to the extent that Lemonade's "Forward 
Without Up^WDownload" Trio are probably more widely implemented now).

Polymer is no longer the only client to use the Lemonade Trio, and 
I'd not be too surprised to see a reasonable substantial number of 
clients implement it within a few months, now. Even if I'm wrong, and 
it remains a fairly specialized action, there's a cost - measured in 
real-world currency for many people - attached to this issue, and 
it's a pretty bad choice to alienate yourself from the mobile email 
market right now.

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

