MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Wed Jan 15 13:19:14 2014
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:51 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Email charset statistics
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vUg2RFxEobH9u+1pBxJ5C7u991EL9es2BBWJ3=ZGWpyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52D5D84D.6070208@verizon.net>
	<6a420a96-0755-48c3-b8d7-f208c6de14a1@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<CABa8R6vUg2RFxEobH9u+1pBxJ5C7u991EL9es2BBWJ3=ZGWpyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed6a8139-25eb-49b3-a1a5-eccccb3468e4@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

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

