33 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
33 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU Tue Sep 27 10:12:33 2005
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:36 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] partial fetch
|
|
In-Reply-To: <3D9D02497026344DB100E7D18A6C06E3B5E1E3@nbexch01.neubond.com>
|
|
References: <3D9D02497026344DB100E7D18A6C06E3B5E1E3@nbexch01.neubond.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0509271009220.3980@Shimo-Tomobiki.panda.com>
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Otto Leung wrote:
|
|
> Why is Partial Fetch important to be implemented on the server side?
|
|
|
|
It is documented as mandatory-to-implement in the specification.
|
|
Consequently, there are clients which depend upon it being implemented,
|
|
and these clients will not function if it is not implemented.
|
|
|
|
An IMAP server implementation MUST implement all mandatory-to-implement
|
|
facilities in the base specification. Unless something is explicitly
|
|
documented as optional (or "MAY") in the base specification, then it is
|
|
mandatory-to-implement.
|
|
|
|
In general, the only optional facilities in the IMAP base specification
|
|
are the ability to reference non-INBOX mailboxes (the server can reply NO
|
|
to some other mailbox name) and the ability to SEARCH character sets other
|
|
than US-ASCII and UTF-8.
|
|
|
|
-- Mark --
|
|
|
|
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
|
|
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
|
|
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
|
|
|