Anders Le Chevalier writes:
> What I just said. This is IMAP's ugly side. There's only one, very > specific way, to implement IMAP on the client that has any > reasonable chance of working with every IMAP server in existence. > And it's not very obvious what it should be, not obvious at all. > You can't rely on UIDNEXT. You can't rely on half the stuff in RFC > 3501, because you don't have a lot of guarantees to go on. > What is your policy regarding Courier's implementation of IMAP? Support only bare minimum required features, or add new RFCs, even though they are optional?
There are no formal policies written in stone. What gets done is a combination of what I want to get done, for whatever reason, together with anything reasonable that someone else wants to get done, and writes a reasonable patch for it.
pgpNIKPMpKwCb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
