MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Mon Nov 28 10:50:39 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: <FD53C5ED7A77BE8EADAC9A88@ninevah.local>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511231556030.533@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<438B4AB4.2020102@sun.com> <FD53C5ED7A77BE8EADAC9A88@ninevah.local>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0511281048490.562@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> That said I personally would prefer an ANNOTATEMORE approach as I do see this 
> as being useful for both 'static' server limits as well as 'dynamic' 
> per-mailbox quota limits. Different server implementations/deployments will 
> likely have one or other of those limits so we need to provide a way to 
> handle both.

Is this an either/or?  I think that it may be a both/and.

I don't think that the ANNOTATEMORE approach is suitable if it is a server 
limit rather than a mail store limit.  MAXSEARCHTERMS is a good example of 
something that is always a server limit.  An APPEND limit may be a server 
limit or a mail store limit.

-- 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.

