MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm  Tue Mar 24 19:21:57 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is OpenEmailSurvey open to share method or code?
In-Reply-To: <CALFQBW0QaBWDXgbXuswiB-UCJd9G_D8Gxkm+fjhCtU+RyUq9_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55109D4C.2080900@laposte.net> <5510BC3A.9020702@verizon.net>
	<5511EDA6.7060107@laposte.net>
	<1427238946.968483.244801809.1E105795@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CALFQBW2BxiB_CCKtg+VsfQsG25LyQeoi67n1UXqn3SUv8dqJsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1427242315.980300.244819753.01E1D55F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<CALFQBW0QaBWDXgbXuswiB-UCJd9G_D8Gxkm+fjhCtU+RyUq9_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1427250117.1005085.244856813.6CC2DA89@webmail.messagingengine.com>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Bron Gondwana
> <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> __
>> Are you certain that it's related to the ID command rather than a
>> general random percentage of connections advertisement?
>
> I am not certain. I was unable to find any discussion/documentation of
> this phenomenon on the net and my initial attempts to find contact
> points did not bear fruit. Since using ID made the problem go away as
> far as I could tell, I did not pursue further escalation/contact.
>
> However, given that QA of Firefox OS device producers seem to test
> 163.com a lot and I received a duplicate of the bug for our v2.0
> branch that did not include the fix (https://bugzil.la/1112549) ~2
> weeks after the fix landed on our v2.1/v2.2 branches, it's probably
> not the worst guess.

Presumably somebody from 163.com could actually clear up the confusion
if they chose to.

Bron.

--
Bron Gondwana brong@fastmail.fm


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20150325/dee4b59c/attachment.html>
