26 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
26 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no Mon Apr 6 05:39:50 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:54 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is OpenEmailSurvey open to share method or code?
|
|
In-Reply-To: <7C224ADC-D72B-4D77-8320-4D9D94C508DF@iki.fi>
|
|
References: <55109D4C.2080900@laposte.net>
|
|
<7C224ADC-D72B-4D77-8320-4D9D94C508DF@iki.fi>
|
|
Message-ID: <184d5bde-ee73-4ad5-b38b-62e86338d7ad@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
|
|
Timo Sirainen writes:
|
|
> What kind of options? In theory you should get everything from
|
|
> CAPABILITY and NAMESPACE replies of course. This kind of
|
|
> detection sounds very much like what the ID extension RFC says
|
|
> MUST NOT be used for any behavioral differences. But I suppose
|
|
> in practise it may be useful/necessary sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Imapsync has options for things that neither of those describe, e.g. choice
|
|
of message equality test. I think that for imapsync, it makes a great deal
|
|
of sense to have a --suggest or --autodetect options that says ID to both
|
|
servers and then offers a suggested command line for transferring mail.
|
|
|
|
Arnt
|
|
|
|
|