MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Mon Apr  6 05:39:50 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is OpenEmailSurvey open to share method or code?
In-Reply-To: <7C224ADC-D72B-4D77-8320-4D9D94C508DF@iki.fi>
References: <55109D4C.2080900@laposte.net>
	<7C224ADC-D72B-4D77-8320-4D9D94C508DF@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <184d5bde-ee73-4ad5-b38b-62e86338d7ad@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

Timo Sirainen writes:
> What kind of options? In theory you should get everything from 
> CAPABILITY and NAMESPACE replies of course. This kind of 
> detection sounds very much like what the ID extension RFC says 
> MUST NOT be used for any behavioral differences. But I suppose 
> in practise it may be useful/necessary sometimes.

Imapsync has options for things that neither of those describe, e.g. choice 
of message equality test. I think that for imapsync, it makes a great deal 
of sense to have a --suggest or --autodetect options that says ID to both 
servers and then offers a suggested command line for transferring mail.

Arnt


