MBOX-Line: From bill.shannon at sun.com  Tue Sep 12 15:44:15 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.4.65.0609121518540.2164@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>
	<4507301B.5040601@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121518540.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Message-ID: <4507383F.5090308@sun.com>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Bill Shannon wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Ah, but if the "essential functionality" is anything less than the full 
> capability of RFC 3501 you will have to find "concensus".  I think that 
> you will encounter vigorous objection to any subset, no matter what you 
> pick from RFC 3501 to leave out.  I'd be one of the objectors...

I was suggesting a consensus on what to include.  Perhaps I should've
said "majority opinion".  Any reasonable decision making process that
avoids deadlock will do.  If there's something you want in but no one
else wants in, you lose.  But at least we end up with a test suite that
has stuff that "everyone" wants in, which is infinitely better than the
complete lack of a test suite we have today.

>> A test
>> suite would allow customers to apply some pressure to the server vendor.
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  I'm a bit more pessimistic.

Test suites have been very beneficial to the success of Java technology.

