Because at the first IMC face-to-face, a number of client authors said: "Hey, it would be REALLY nice if you added this feature to the protocol", Mike Gharns said "Sure, I'll write it up", and I said "Ok, I'll put it in". So we did.
And a couple of people added support for it and..... It turns out that the documentation for LIST explicitly says that you can have whatever flags you wanted (read the spec carefully) so there was no need for a new variant of LIST. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Harris > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Children flags, RFC3348. > > OK, Arnt Gulbransen has pointed me at RFC3348, which covers > the CHILDREN extension (thanks Arnt). > > What I want to know now is "why is the Exchange server using > this extension?". > > Consider this text from RFC3501 section 7.2.1 (CAPABILITY > response, page 67 in my copy): > > -------------------------- Cut here ---------------------------- > Other capability names indicate that the server supports an > extension, revision, or amendment to the IMAP4rev1 protocol. > Server responses MUST conform to this document until the client > issues a command that uses the associated capability. > -------------------------- Cut here ---------------------------- > > Now, I have issued *no* command other than LIST in this > session: am I wrong in thinking that the Exchange server is > behaving improperly by sending LIST responses that contain > HasChildren and HasNoChildren flags in them? Surely I should > need to issue the command "CHILDREN" > (or whatever) before this extension is enabled? RFC3348 does > not appear to me to be a formal revision of RFC3501 (or of > 2060, for that > matter) - its status is "informational". > > I don't want to sound anal about this, but it seems to me > that a major aspect of IMAP has always been ensuring > interoperability, and injudicious use of extensions in this > manner is not conducive to that. In this case it's probably > relatively harmless, but I can think of plenty of situations > where it would not be. > > Or am I simply misunderstanding this issue? Is it in fact > legal for a server to issue any response it wants in this case? > > Cheers! > > -- David -- > > ------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail > ---------------------- > Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612 > > Thought for the day: > Erotic (adj): using a feather as a sex aid. > Kinky (adj): using the whole duck. > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: > http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >
