MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com  Mon Oct 31 13:45:03 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] BODY.PEEK[section]<origin.size> FETCH response
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
References: <8F0DA5FA-FB07-4AFA-9C58-8F0927998343@ghoti.org>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com> wrote:
> It is also a safe assumption that Gmail, Yahoo, Exchange, Apple iCloud
> (iSCREAM), etc. implement IMAP incorrectly. Those companies don't care
> about implementing IMAP correctly; they only care about having something
> that talks to Outlook. If they cared, they would implement it correctly
> and hire someone competent to make it work. They don't.

tsk tsk, haven't I said this before?  Outlook isn't our primary at
all.  For desktops, Apple Mail and Thunderbird are far more common,
but all desktop clients are far outstripped by mobile clients.  I
imagine this is the case for most of the web mail providers, and
probably not the case for other servers.

Though, I kind of doubt that Outlook is the primary client for
Exchange IMAP either, they probably use MAPI.

(and we answer this one correctly too, fyi)

Brandon
-- 
?Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
?Staff Engineer
?Gmail Delivery TLM

