MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com  Wed Jan 15 14:01:29 2014
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:51 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Email charset statistics
In-Reply-To: <CAF1dMVFuc9V8PTFO5cGNQ3CJ9Vg4wTS=J8kDYNQYW=Maxsbo+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52D5D84D.6070208@verizon.net>
	<6a420a96-0755-48c3-b8d7-f208c6de14a1@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<CABa8R6vUg2RFxEobH9u+1pBxJ5C7u991EL9es2BBWJ3=ZGWpyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<42241671-b23e-4a3f-9506-b054eb639447@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<CAF1dMVFuc9V8PTFO5cGNQ3CJ9Vg4wTS=J8kDYNQYW=Maxsbo+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uJeZKw61G=PAnKHCqaniu_uaMdUeLr2Sb3VPE+4i=qVA@mail.gmail.com>

Sure, my issue wasn't that I preferred 5738.

Brandon


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info> wrote:

> Off my mind RFC6855 reduces lots of UTF8=* overheads (and headaches)
> and makes ENABLE call much better.
>
> I have to read both again to confirm, but the old RFC had many
> overheads for different mode (UTF8 or not) to too many commands, and
> now (RFC6855) only APPEND has new extension.
>
> I suggest to ignore RFC5738 at all if you care for implementation
> only.  RFC6855 was written to cover all extension needed for UTF8
> without the need to touch RFC5738.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
> <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07:45 PM CEST, Brandon Long wrote:
> >>
> >> Didn't remember the exact rfc and did a quick search to find it.  Yes, I
> >> meant 6855... which really could use more information on how its
> different
> >> from 5738, as I look at both right now.  6855 just says it obsoletes
> 5738.
> >
> >
> > I suppose it could do with a bit more.
> >
> > 6855 started as 5738 with a random smattering of improvements (I didn't
> pay
> > attention at the start). Then I tried to implement it and protested
> against
> > various brain damage, and in one quick jabber session, 5738bis lost every
> > feature I hated. I was so surprised that I'm not sure I remembered to
> > mention everything. Then Dave Cridland suggested better quoting, and then
> > the RFC was published.
> >
> > What badness do you see in 6855?
> >
> >
> > Arnt
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imap-protocol mailing list
> > Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> > http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20140115/5d815e23/attachment.html>
