MBOX-Line: From bill.shannon at sun.com  Tue Sep 12 15:09:31 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.4.65.0609121426210.2164@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>
	<45071A57.5080406@sun.com> <20060912134217.X80085@orthanc.ca>
	<45071C8E.4010909@sun.com> <20060912134901.F80085@orthanc.ca>
	<4507222E.7050706@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121426210.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Message-ID: <4507301B.5040601@sun.com>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Bill Shannon wrote:
> 
>> The spec should be very clear on what "correct" behavior is.
> 
> 
> The base spec supposedly is very clear on that point.  Most of the 
> arguments are not about what is correct, but rather about what is good.

I'm sure that's true on this mailing list, but the problems I deal
with day to day are about correctness.

>> Neither the spec nor the test suite need to be perfect to deliver great
>> value.  I see a lot of basic functionality that's broken.  A test suite
>> that tested those cases would make a huge difference.  Specifying, and
>> testing, the esoteric corner cases can be done later.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, "the esoteric corner cases can be done later" covers a 
> great many sins.  What is an "esoteric corner case" to some people is an 
> essential functionality to others.

A test suite that tested the consensus essential functionality would
find a great many server bugs and would be of great benefit to customers
evaluating and using IMAP servers.

> Much of the problem comes from individuals who claim that IMAP is too 
> complicated to implement from the spec, and thus it is alright to look 
> at the examples and implement empirically to work with whatever server 
> they have access to (client implementors) or Outlook and Netscape 
> (server implementors).
> 
> A common server defies the specification in multiple places; when the 
> violations are pointed out its author's answer is "yawn" or accusations 
> of FUD-spreading.  There isn't much can be done in that case.  If a test 
> suite was produced, such people would attack the motivations of the 
> authors of the test suite rather than fix the problems.

I already don't even waste time debugging problems related to *that*
server, because they always turn out to be bugs in the server.  A test
suite would allow customers to apply some pressure to the server vendor.

