MBOX-Line: From bill.shannon at sun.com  Tue Sep 12 13:36:39 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@sun.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121316280.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
References: <4505F2FE.8090807@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609111648410.5544@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<450713AB.4090601@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121316280.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Message-ID: <45071A57.5080406@sun.com>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> Hi Bill -
> 
> I appreciate your feelings about 4.1.3 being worse than 4.1.2; but 
> empirical evidence over more than a decade shows that 4.1.3 actually 
> causes less problems for clients than 4.1.2.

Most clients are incredibly stupid.  Most of my time spent supporting
JavaMail is spent finding bugs in servers that don't cause problems
for any other clients, which of course leads people to believe the
bug is in JavaMail.  Most clients just treat IMAP as a glorified POP.

4.1.3 is worst for clients that try to do the right thing.  I guess
4.1.2 is worst for stupid clients, which sadly is the majority.

I'd be happy to have both 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 declared as not allowed
behavior.

What a shame there isn't a test suite to test conformance with the
IMAP spec...

