MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm  Thu May 19 01:44:29 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Thoughts on keyword improvements/enhancements
In-Reply-To: <4DD4D472.2090307@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <20110518011645.Horde.6sTkboF5lbhN03Jd3XNndCA@bigworm.curecanti.org><20110518100807.29d4b72c@arbre.eng.oslo.osa>
	<4DD4D472.2090307@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Message-ID: <1305794669.24152.1453625537@webmail.messagingengine.com>



On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:27 +0200, "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 10:08 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > Lack of backwards compatibility kills this one out the gate.  You can't
> > break existing clients and servers.
> 
> It doesn't have to. ENABLE exists for things like this.

Yeah, of course. But you need to suppress them unless enabled or something... and deal with issues ?ike what "store flags (x)" means if not enabled. Does it clear the flags it can't see?

> That said, I like X-GM-LABELS more. A new namespace for user-originated 
> names

Agree. It makes more sense than extending flags.

Bron
-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  brong@fastmail.fm


