Re: Communciator 4.02 Imap EXPUNGE problem

Chris Hanson <cmh@greendragon.com> Tue, 26 August 1997 22:45 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa18773; 26 Aug 97 18:45 EDT
Received: from lists.u.washington.edu (root@lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid SAA08346 for <ietf-archive@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:48:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from host (server@lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with SMTP id PAA16826; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:39:14 -0700
Received: from mx2.u.washington.edu (mx2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id PAB45884 for <imap@lists.u.washington.edu>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:38:08 -0700
Received: from mx1.cac.washington.edu (mx1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.1]) by mx2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.04) with ESMTP id PAA08364 for <imap@u.washington.edu>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:38:05 -0700
Received: from watervalley.net (mail.WaterValley.Net [206.31.151.3]) by mx1.cac.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.04) with SMTP id PAA00271 for <imap@cac.washington.edu>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:38:02 -0700
Received: from [206.31.151.87] by watervalley.net (Stalker SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id S.0000083199 for <imap@cac.washington.edu>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:48:50 -0500
Message-Id: <l03110705b02909db48cf@[206.31.151.87]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:37:56 -0500
Sender: IMAP-owner@u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Chris Hanson <cmh@greendragon.com>
To: imap <imap@cac.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Communciator 4.02 Imap EXPUNGE problem
In-Reply-To: <MailManager.872620125.19274.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
References: <SIMEON.9708261337.F@uranus.diz.watson.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: gdc-cmh@mail.greendragon.com
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

At 1:28 PM -0500 8/26/97, Mark Crispin wrote:
>I wonder how many other statements have to be made of the form "yes, the
>protocol allows a server to export the concept but that doesn't necessarily
>mean that it's there."

It's obvious that A LOT of such statements have to be made, and that they
have to be made in some centrally-accessible place like an Implementor's
Guide. Otherwise client implementors are going to continue ignoring them,
since as far as they know they're issuing legal protocol, and are going to
continue to wonder why you're frothing at them.

(And don't tell me the mailing list is considered that central place.  Most
client -- and even server -- implementors are just going to get the spec
and start designing, since they don't have time to read multiple years of
list archives to pick up all the little subtle points.)