MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Tue Sep 12 13:55:57 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <45071C8E.4010909@sun.com>
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>
Message-ID: <20060912134901.F80085@orthanc.ca>

> It's the difference between "good" and "correct".  I'd start with
> "correct" and work up to "good".

I'd start with defining "good."  The problem with a protocol as complex 
(some would say bloated) as IMAP is that -- from the client's perspective 
-- there is no one "right" way to use it.  Different client 
implementations have different goals, and thus different demands of the 
server.  In some cases it makes sense for the client to (say) talk to the 
server using a restricted feature set that, when examined without context, 
makes it look like the client is just a glorified POP engine.

And if you do ever manage to define "good" you then get to solve the 
problem of determining what constitutes "compliant" behaviour when faced 
with the n! permutations of extensions interacting with and without each 
other.

This isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

--lyndon

