IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.com>
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 AC38C21E8016 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.987, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 m2bCN6eYcLrb for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B70421F85B6 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: From sago.qbik.com (unverified [192.168.0.3]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.1.0 (Build 3384)) with SMTP id <0018873884@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:13:05 +1300
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.0.8 (Build 3364)) with SMTP id <0010062482@sago.qbik.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:12:50 +1300
Message-ID: <4F42E182.8020509@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:12:50 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161626400.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3D6E57.8010301@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171127330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3F4F8F.3040601@qbik.com> <1329550573.30138.140661038121885@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202191832430.12769@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20120219192604.GA11323@launde.brong.net> <4F415C07.3040100@qbik.com> <20120219220835.GB12549@launde.brong.net> <4F417EF5.6030809@qbik.com> <20120219233901.GA13600@launde.brong.net> <4F41952B.8020809@qbik.com> <1329744434.16008.140661038859217@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202201329130.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F42ABC1.2040507@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202202350580.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202202350580.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:13:08 -0000

On 21/02/2012 12:53 p.m., Tony Finch wrote:
> Adrien de Croy<adrien@qbik.com>  wrote:
>> If there was a distinction between a control message and a data message, then
>> the network could know things like how to not create loops.
> That's what null return paths are for. Exchange doesn't implement
> auto-replies properly so they don't work as they should.

null return paths are a hack.  And they aren't reliable.  Even though 
it's explicitly stated in many RFCs, some MTAs still reject them.

And they destroy information, unless you can put the lost information 
into a machine readable location in the message body.

>> It would need to be clearly defined, machine readable etc. It could be stored
>> and forwarded, and moved over the same transport.
> Already done.

you mean the message format is defined?  Where?  sorry if I'm being 
lazy, I didn't think that was defined in the RFC for DNs.

Adrien

>
> Tony.

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email