IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-imapext-list-extensions-15

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 25 January 2006 23:55 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0PNtdhO078341; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id k0PNtdKg078340; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0PNtcfp078321 for <ietf-imapext@imc.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alexey.melnikov@isode.com)
Received: from [10.40.68.103] ([219.238.46.67]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (submission) with ESMTPA; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:55:22 +0000
Message-ID: <43D80FE2.8020102@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:55:14 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
CC: Barry Leiba <leiba@watson.ibm.com>, ietf-imapext@imc.org
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-imapext-list-extensions-15
References: <D476564DADC8812608B62197@saturn.watson.ibm.com> <17459.1137518357.135844@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
In-Reply-To: <17459.1137518357.135844@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Dave Cridland wrote:

>> >>> a) So far, I've not seen any server implementation supporting
>> >>> multiple mailbox patterns.
>> ...
>> > Yes, I think it could prove useful later, certainly. At this stage,
>> > it makes no real difference to clients, and it's additional
>> > complexity for servers - and server developers have historically
>> > preferred to avoid complexity at almost any cost.
>>
>> But we've had a couple of comments to leave it.  Do we have a
>> resolution for this issue?
>
> I've seen very little comment. My general suspicion is that those 
> server implementors who expressed any opinion at all aren't entirely 
> happy with it. Personally, I'd be happy to leave it in, but I'll defer 
> to the server folk.

Dave, if this make you happier, I am willing to fix Isode implementation 
to support multiple patterns ;-).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email