MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Wed Mar 27 19:35:39 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: <CAKHUCzyfA2ZnDn3hXQt=DCj5O4y_fRSaW6ocDLMd1VpDWEn6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABa8R6s3rK5JkXBtV7RWbav9T2GBCg+pw-aWd9=5Szv3ocDS_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5152E3E6.40506@aj.jp.nec.com> <1364388724.13923.97.camel@innu>
	<CABa8R6vv_fupAVX6bv018L9j-uW=YdW5wJ+oACrd3W_WVJq9Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKHUCzyfA2ZnDn3hXQt=DCj5O4y_fRSaW6ocDLMd1VpDWEn6zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4F401469-14A2-48FA-A6F7-B667A52E46C4@orthanc.ca>


On 2013-03-27, at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

> I'm hesitant to suggest it, but is it worth sending BYE and dropping the connection? It's sailing just within the lines of the specification, I think.

I think this is perfectly valid behaviour, and well within the spec.  A smart server might choose whether the eat-and-continue vs. bye-and-punt based on the size of the proposed literal+, but punting is entirely valid.

And while the "nibble at the data slowly" idea is eeevily enticing, it's going to wreak havoc with the battery on my mobile, which is almost guaranteed to be running the most brain-dead IMAP client on the planet.  (Servers factoring in aggregate data link speed in their eat-vs-bye calculations will score many karma points in my book.)

--lyndon


