MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Wed Mar 27 19:30:25 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+
In-Reply-To: <78AB33AC-4EFC-42AF-80F8-AD1FB3C26746@iki.fi>
References: <CABa8R6s3rK5JkXBtV7RWbav9T2GBCg+pw-aWd9=5Szv3ocDS_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<DA4AB101-1D7E-466C-8DA1-6234EB098FF8@iki.fi>
	<CABa8R6v5dApFF6Quwzrb0=XethrwCU0EQT6t3XtLVK6VRoYhmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2E07E1B-80E9-4FFB-8518-B4CDC344639E@isode.com>
	<78AB33AC-4EFC-42AF-80F8-AD1FB3C26746@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <5A6676FF-E967-48F1-839C-56149288A402@orthanc.ca>


On 2013-03-27, at 3:27 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:

> So .. maybe a per-mailbox limit isn't that useful. I was mainly thinking about different users having different limits, causing shared mailboxes to have different limits. Or maybe some other special mailboxes with special rules.

Why not require the server to issue a [LITERALPLUSSIZE nnn] whenever the server's state changes the value it's prepared to deal with.  That makes it agnostic to any existing and future extensions.

You could then set limits by user, by folder, by user+folder, etc.  Lots of flexibility, and it never has to be updated for follow-on capabilities.  (I run in fear of the 64-bit proposal.)

--lyndon


