69 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
69 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com Wed Jan 15 14:01:29 2014
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:51 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Email charset statistics
|
|
In-Reply-To: <CAF1dMVFuc9V8PTFO5cGNQ3CJ9Vg4wTS=J8kDYNQYW=Maxsbo+w@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
References: <52D5D84D.6070208@verizon.net>
|
|
<6a420a96-0755-48c3-b8d7-f208c6de14a1@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
<CABa8R6vUg2RFxEobH9u+1pBxJ5C7u991EL9es2BBWJ3=ZGWpyw@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
<42241671-b23e-4a3f-9506-b054eb639447@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
<CAF1dMVFuc9V8PTFO5cGNQ3CJ9Vg4wTS=J8kDYNQYW=Maxsbo+w@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uJeZKw61G=PAnKHCqaniu_uaMdUeLr2Sb3VPE+4i=qVA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Sure, my issue wasn't that I preferred 5738.
|
|
|
|
Brandon
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info> wrote:
|
|
|
|
> Off my mind RFC6855 reduces lots of UTF8=* overheads (and headaches)
|
|
> and makes ENABLE call much better.
|
|
>
|
|
> I have to read both again to confirm, but the old RFC had many
|
|
> overheads for different mode (UTF8 or not) to too many commands, and
|
|
> now (RFC6855) only APPEND has new extension.
|
|
>
|
|
> I suggest to ignore RFC5738 at all if you care for implementation
|
|
> only. RFC6855 was written to cover all extension needed for UTF8
|
|
> without the need to touch RFC5738.
|
|
>
|
|
> Joseph
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
|
|
> <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
|
|
> > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07:45 PM CEST, Brandon Long wrote:
|
|
> >>
|
|
> >> Didn't remember the exact rfc and did a quick search to find it. Yes, I
|
|
> >> meant 6855... which really could use more information on how its
|
|
> different
|
|
> >> from 5738, as I look at both right now. 6855 just says it obsoletes
|
|
> 5738.
|
|
> >
|
|
> >
|
|
> > I suppose it could do with a bit more.
|
|
> >
|
|
> > 6855 started as 5738 with a random smattering of improvements (I didn't
|
|
> pay
|
|
> > attention at the start). Then I tried to implement it and protested
|
|
> against
|
|
> > various brain damage, and in one quick jabber session, 5738bis lost every
|
|
> > feature I hated. I was so surprised that I'm not sure I remembered to
|
|
> > mention everything. Then Dave Cridland suggested better quoting, and then
|
|
> > the RFC was published.
|
|
> >
|
|
> > What badness do you see in 6855?
|
|
> >
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Arnt
|
|
> > _______________________________________________
|
|
> > Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
> > Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
> > http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
>
|
|
-------------- next part --------------
|
|
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
|
|
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20140115/5d815e23/attachment.html>
|