Re: [lemonade] pull, please, not push.

Randall Gellens writes:
> With Push, the client may need arbitrary Submit extensions, and hence 
> a pass-through mechanism is needed.  This is because Submit 
> extensions go to the fundamental use of Submit, and hence cannot be 
> arbitrarily limited when Submit is added to IMAP.  That is, by adding 
> message submission to IMAP we are adding the entire functionality of 
> message submission to IMAP.

Yes, agreed.

I'd like to note that the (very clever) passthrough mechanism in the 
push draft seems a little limited. More of a "BSMTP extension 
passthrough" than ESMTP, so to speak. Would it be capable of passing 
e.g. draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg through? The conneg-09 draft looks 
okay, -08 doesn't. So I still think IMAP extensions are needed for some 
SMTP/Submit extensions.

> With Pull, the client is submitting a message and hence itself has no 
> need of IMAP extensions.  The mini-IMAP client within the Submit 
> server is not a full IMAP client, and thus will have no use for any 
> IMAP extensions not directly related to its task of fetching a 
> limited and defined item.  With Pull, we are not adding all of IMAP 
> to message submission, we are only adding a very small and 
> well-defined use of IMAP to the submission server.

Quite. Much more manageable.

Arnt

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade