MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm  Tue Mar 24 20:01:44 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is OpenEmailSurvey open to share method or code?
In-Reply-To: <2FC3E597-358B-4F71-B1F6-68A18C85DB51@orthanc.ca>
References: <55109D4C.2080900@laposte.net>
	<1427153195.246194.244290758.41EF7C3D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<F90D4251-9EE1-493B-8A5F-31B8A1B41B87@orthanc.ca>
	<1427226341.922442.244719958.3B420059@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<2FC3E597-358B-4F71-B1F6-68A18C85DB51@orthanc.ca>
Message-ID: <1427252504.1020832.244866921.0886703A@webmail.messagingengine.com>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 01:51 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> 
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:45 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > Of these, a bunch are non-standard / never been standardised.
> 
> Yes, I noticed.  But there are still a butt-load of RFC extensions that deserve review, I think.

Honestly the simplest thing is what was discussed years ago on the imap5 list, just picking
all the ones which really matter and get significant use, bunding them behind "IMAP5" and
replacing all the other capabilities with just IMAP5.

It has the plus sides of:

a) shorter capability strings
b) a base standard of stuff you have to support to be allowed to claim to be IMAP5

(I would include QRESYNC in that though, or go back and address the expunged hole in condstore)

Bron.

-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  brong@fastmail.fm

