Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If a server could send an tagged NO to a FETCH, then there would be > no need for a serverto implement ENVELOPE, BODYSTRUCTURE, etc. -- > just send a tagged NO and force the client to FETCH RFC822 and parse > the message itself.
I don't see why you would take it that far. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say "the server can give a NO response in these conditions, but still must support these features"? Why would a client interpret NO as a signal that it should do the parsing itself? > If the server can't parse the message at least as well as the client > (and preferably better), then the server is broken. Sure. But how do you get from there to "the server must never send NO to FETCH"? paul
