MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Mon Nov 28 11:46:53 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: IMAP capability for maximum APPEND message
	size?
In-Reply-To: <000c01c5f452$541ab820$6301a8c0@xms.co.za>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com><438B4AB4.2020102@sun.com>
	<FD53C5ED7A77BE8EADAC9A88@ninevah.local><Pine.OSX.4.64.0511281048490.562@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<000c01c5f452$541ab820$6301a8c0@xms.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511281141460.562@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Right, but ANNOTATEMORE does allow server level annotations as well as 
> per-mailbox annotations. The question is how much of the server limit details 
> do you want exposed via CAPABILITY (which all clients will be forced to get) 
> vs in ANNOTATEMORE (where clients have to explicitly ask for it). Perhaps all 
> we need is a 'LIMITS' capability that tells clients that detailed 
> server/mailbox limit information is available via ANNOTATEMORE and they 
> should use that.

I think that I am opposed to any new capability which requires the use of 
annotations to obtain the value.  This is a needless interdependency.

I may be persuaded otherwise, but I doubt that this case (server limits) 
would do so.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

