59 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
59 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From vladimir_butenko at stalker.com Mon Apr 10 14:15:04 2006
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: "Vladimir A. Butenko" <vladimir_butenko@stalker.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:37 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] LIST Clarification
|
|
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0604101359200.4904@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
References: <443A7A2D.2070708@consilient.com> <web-35034698@mail.stalker.com>
|
|
<Pine.OSX.4.64.0604101053530.2906@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
<web-35035906@mail.stalker.com>
|
|
<Pine.WNT.4.65.0604101359200.4904@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
Message-ID: <web-35036142@mail.stalker.com>
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:01:36 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
|
|
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
|
|
> I think that your message (which you sent only to me) raises some good
|
|
>points. May I forward it to the imap-protocol mailing list, and answer it
|
|
>there?
|
|
|
|
Sure. I'm at home and lovely PacBell/SBC/AT&T/whatever it is now - broke the
|
|
connection right when I finished writing it, and went down for 40 mins - so
|
|
I had to re-assemble the letter later and, obviously, did not put the
|
|
correct addresses in. Sorry about that - please forward it to the list.
|
|
|
|
Or do you prefer that this discussion remain private?
|
|
|
|
> I think that the only point of contention is if we need to declare another
|
|
>errata to RFC 3501 or decide that it's good enough the way it is.
|
|
|
|
I do not see any real "error" in the current protocol specs. But some
|
|
clarification would be a good thing - if/when you plan to release a new
|
|
version of that RFC.
|
|
|
|
Ideally, the IMAP standard should be broken in 2 - the "Mail store standard"
|
|
with all semantics of the mail store (including all that INBOX mess, ACLs,
|
|
renaming of INBOX, case sensitivity, the UTF-7 encoding of mailbox names,
|
|
etc, etc.,) and the "IMAP proper" - the protocol itself. The first standard
|
|
should also specify how other protocols should access mail store. For
|
|
example, what should happen if I read mail via POP and some message has been
|
|
deleted and some has been added? We know what will happen (the client should
|
|
not see the change in message #s, and attempts to retrieve the deleted
|
|
message should return -Err or an empty message) - but there should be a
|
|
place to explain all these things. And the IMAP protocol (or POP protocol)
|
|
specs are not the right place for all these things.
|
|
|
|
Feel free to forward this part to the list, too - unfortunately, I cannot
|
|
afford to help you with these changes, even if you agree with them.
|
|
Hopefully, some folks on the mailing list will be willing to meet this
|
|
challenge.
|
|
|
|
> -- Mark --
|
|
>
|
|
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
|
|
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
|
|
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|
Vladimir
|
|
|