IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 17 February 2012 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9126721F85EC for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:36:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdHXaa1ywATQ for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B0521F85BD for <imap5@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:49685) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1RyPr3-0003bM-Ea (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:13 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1RyPr3-0006PI-FS (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:13 +0000
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:13 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3DA4A6.5020304@qbik.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171535330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <3077.1329388899.383165@puncture> <4F3CE16B.3060603@qbik.com> <3077.1329391344.173214@puncture> <4F3CEB35.9080200@qbik.com> <1329394296.953.140661037317197@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4F3CFD35.10501@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161626400.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3D6E57.8010301@qbik.com> <20120216224124.GC4578@dan.olp.net> <CABa8R6uxeFVSDQzzSS6ziV8b2roYdw38GMpjEm+1DGkhD3MdVg@mail.gmail.com> <20120216232954.GB5356@dan.olp.net> <4F3DA4A6.5020304@qbik.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:36:20 -0000

Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>
> Whichever way you do it, BURL vs SUBMIT, there is an issue of trust if the 2
> servers are in different realms.

I don't think that setup is worth supporting in a simplified protocol.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire: Westerly 5 or 6, backing southwesterly 5
to 7, perhaps gale 8 later in Viking. Rough, occasionally very rough in Viking
and North Utsire. Rain or squally showers. Good, occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email