MBOX-Line: From mrc+imap at panda.com  Mon Oct 31 14:12:47 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] BODY.PEEK[section]<origin.size> FETCH response
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8F0DA5FA-FB07-4AFA-9C58-8F0927998343@ghoti.org>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311352000.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Brandon Long wrote:
> tsk tsk, haven't I said this before?  Outlook isn't our primary at
> all.

I was told specifically, by Google, that Google does not care at all about
compliance with the IMAP RFCs, but rather that Outlook using IMAP behaved
like Gmail. I was also told specifically that compliance and/or
interoperability is NOT a priority at Google.

If you think that Gmail's IMAP server is compliant, you are mistaken.

Should Google's corporate goals ever change to incorporate compliance and
interoperability, I wish you luck on making it compliant. You have a lot
of work, and a great deal of testing, ahead of you. You also face some
very difficult design decisions.

FWIW, "it works with Apple Mail and Thunderbird" does not constitute
testing. Not by a long shot.

-- 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.

