Re: [imap5] My personal wishlist for an IMAP5

Mark Crispin <> Tue, 26 August 2008 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34653A69E7; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84973A6A12 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2UPkKk9Zp8Tt for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162193A6906 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU126-W35 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:53 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU126-W353B74C131A4529C033A86B8660@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Mark Crispin <>
To: Philip Van Hoof <>,
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:28:53 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <1219768622.6169.70.camel@nerts>
References: <1219768622.6169.70.camel@nerts>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2008 17:28:53.0831 (UTC) FILETIME=[3643C570:01C907A1]
Subject: Re: [imap5] My personal wishlist for an IMAP5
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> What I want most from IMAP5 is a marketing word that says: THIS set of
> modern capabilities IS an IMAP5 server. Once adopted E-mail clients
> could far more easily consume the modern things:
> It's a guarantee for quality for the user of your E-mail client: it's
> IMAP5, so it's okay.

That is an utterly hopeless cause.

No matter what the protocol says is mandatory, you will have server
implementors who do whatever they damn well wish even if it violates
the protocol.

In some cases, such as Microsoft, it is a legitimate blunder.  You just
have to spend weary years getting them to take the problem seriously.

In other cases, such as Google, it is intentional.

During my recent job search, I was lectured that I had to get over this
quaint notion that interoperability is important or even desirable.

Because of this, I have become convinced that it is hopeless to do
anything in open standards beyond a general framework.  Complex
behaviors such as IMAP semantics are hopeless until such time as the
EU (or some other legal authority) imposes fines on vendors for
standards non-compliance.

Until that time, there is no protocol police, nor is there any guarantee
that IMAP4, IMAP5, or IMAP69 means anything other than some vague
resemblance to what the document purportedly says.

-- Mark --

Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
imap5 mailing list