wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095115.22893.mbox:2,S

56 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU Sun Oct 28 09:34:46 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:40 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] re: GMail
In-Reply-To: <RMRLrFbL0dA92HCVkk6Cgw.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
References: <alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710241938220.520@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
<fc2c80ae0710270911o23f0b366g942b2956ac3fa@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710270924180.4788@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
<5202.1193523708.069559@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
<alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710271708460.11181@pangtzu.panda.com>
<1193531029.25921.561.camel@hurina>
<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710271748490.204456@Ningyo-no-Mori.Panda.COM>
<RMRLrFbL0dA92HCVkk6Cgw.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710280923190.11181@pangtzu.panda.com>
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> I haven't looked at CONVERT recently, but from what I remember, it can handle
> charset conversion. That leaves ENVELOPE, BODY, BODYSTRUCTURE, mailbox names
> and flags. So a new extension to say "give me those in UTF-8" makes sense to
> me.
IMHO, since CONVERT isn't done yet, it should be extended to do ENVELOPE,
BODY[STRUCTURE] for those people who want that functionality. The main
benefit that I see is that it allows clients to have less knowledge of
random charsets. Otherwise, clients need to know how to generate MIME
encoded words, and probably want to generate them in the same charset in
replies that the original message used.
> But an extension to say only "use UTF-8 for mailboxes and flags (instead of
> mUTF-7)" makes even more sense. UTF-8 flags have real value.
Well, there's several possible ways to go about doing all this. Consider
all of these to be strawmen.
1) An "ENABLE UTF-8" command that throws a big switch. Rather unIMAPish.
2) UTF8 FETCH, UTF8 LIST, UTF8 LSUB commands. IMAPish, but somewhat
pessimistic about the future of certain extensions.
3) Make CONVERT do ENVELOPE/BODY[STRUCTURE] for those who want it, and add
a UTF8 option to LISTEXT. Somewhat optimistic about these extensions.
Personally, I vote for 2, simply because this is easy to apply upon the
base specification. Exchange's server, which is rapidly taking over while
we're talking about ever-more esoteric extensions, only supports IDLE,
NAMESPACE, and LITERAL+. I don't see much future for a framework that
requires complex extensions such as CONVERT and LISTEXT.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.