MBOX-Line: From slusarz at curecanti.org  Tue Nov 27 15:49:09 2012
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Michael M Slusarz <slusarz@curecanti.org>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:49 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Combining LITERAL+ and BINARY
In-Reply-To: <1354059359.2844.26.camel@innu>
References: <f99afad3-282b-4ab6-a576-330978724819@flaska.net>
	<1354059359.2844.26.camel@innu>
Message-ID: <20121127164909.Horde.5Yu_tWBUvB-3eb0pQQCEhA1@bigworm.curecanti.org>

Quoting Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>:

> On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 21:05 +0100, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
>> I was wondering what is the correct way of combining LITERAL+ [1]  
>> and BINARY [2]. Unless I'm mistaken, their interaction is not  
>> documented in any of the two RFCs. If I'm correct, this means that  
>> one can either benefit from 8bit APPENDs while blocking with  
>> synchronizing literals, or use LITERAL+ and do the encoding to some  
>> transport format on their own, not using BINARY. Is that right?
>
> It's not defined, so I don't think clients can legally use their
> combination.. Although Dovecot supports the obvious way of combining
> them: ~{n+}

This is explicitly allowed under RFC 4466.  E.g. Section 2.7:

    In addition, the non-terminal "literal8" defined in [BINARY] got
    extended to allow for non-synchronizing literals if both [BINARY] and
    [LITERAL+] extensions are supported by the server.

michael


