On 2010-01-25, at 20:21 , Tim Gray wrote: > > On Mon 25, Jan'10 at 8:00 PM -0200, Caio Chassot wrote: >> On 2010-01-25, at 19:25 , John C. Welch wrote: >>> Define "basics". That's really hard with IMAP. >> >> I'd start with "get email". > > I think John's point, which might be lost on some people here, is that IMAP > is a mess. There's no perfect implementation. Every server has different > extensions, and none implement them all. And Gmail is a big fat F*** YOU in > the face of everyone else.
Yes, indeed. And my point is, because of that, fuck it, we can't cater to each server's idiosyncrasies. A lot of hate will now be directed at me, but I lean more towards IMAP as a dumb store than a super powerful email platform. It'll be a strict give me some mail, store some mail relationship. We're not making a silly terminal app to run on your linux netbook. It's a Mac desktop app, and we have a lot of computing power to spare. We do things on the client, because the client affords *every* feature we want to implement. That some of them map to IMAP server features is at best incidental. (And depends on server vendor, version, particular setup options, etc. Lost battle.) > Anything Letters is going to do for the most part will have to be done > locally other than fetching headers and bodies and a couple of other > features. It might query a server and see if it supports an option, and if > it does, then do it server side, but otherwise it will have to have some > mechanism to fall back on. > <snip> Thank you, I think you made a very clear argument for going cache-only. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
