35 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
35 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com Mon Oct 31 13:45:03 2011
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:46 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] BODY.PEEK[section]<origin.size> FETCH response
|
|
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
|
|
References: <8F0DA5FA-FB07-4AFA-9C58-8F0927998343@ghoti.org>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com> wrote:
|
|
> It is also a safe assumption that Gmail, Yahoo, Exchange, Apple iCloud
|
|
> (iSCREAM), etc. implement IMAP incorrectly. Those companies don't care
|
|
> about implementing IMAP correctly; they only care about having something
|
|
> that talks to Outlook. If they cared, they would implement it correctly
|
|
> and hire someone competent to make it work. They don't.
|
|
|
|
tsk tsk, haven't I said this before? Outlook isn't our primary at
|
|
all. For desktops, Apple Mail and Thunderbird are far more common,
|
|
but all desktop clients are far outstripped by mobile clients. I
|
|
imagine this is the case for most of the web mail providers, and
|
|
probably not the case for other servers.
|
|
|
|
Though, I kind of doubt that Outlook is the primary client for
|
|
Exchange IMAP either, they probably use MAPI.
|
|
|
|
(and we answer this one correctly too, fyi)
|
|
|
|
Brandon
|
|
--
|
|
?Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
?Staff Engineer
|
|
?Gmail Delivery TLM
|
|
|