Re: [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage

Sounds OK. By this way, we can avoid changing the already registered response "TOOBIG" for APPEND command as part of CATENATE extension (rfc4469). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Brandt [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:58 PM
To: Jayantheesh S B; 'Alexey Melnikov'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: [imapext] [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage

 From a server perspective, the proposal solves my concern. From a client perspective, I'm not sure whether the addition of [SP nz-number] to the TOOBIG response would present problems for clients that only implement CATENATE and not APPENDLIMIT. I too would like to see others chime in on that part.

 From what I see, most IMAP sessions either precede an APPEND with a SELECT/EXAMINE or LIST...likely to confirm the existence of the target mailbox into which they're going to append.  The proposal already covers SELECT/EXAMINE, so would it be reasonable to add the APPENDLIMIT=x as an attribute to the LIST response data in order to reflect any per-mailbox limit and avoid trying to convey the limit as part of the TOOBIG response code to APPEND? Something along the line of:

C: t1 LIST "" "%"
S: * LIST (\Marked \HasNoChildren) "/" Inbox
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" ToDo
S: * LIST (\HasChildren) "/" Projects
S: * LIST (\Sent \HasNoChildren) "/" SentMail
S: * LIST (\Marked \Drafts \HasNoChildren \APPENDLIMIT=257890) "/" MyDrafts
S: * LIST (\Trash \HasNoChildren) "/" Trash
S: t1 OK done

Comments?

- Stuart

On 12/10/14 11:20 AM, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
> Yes, I agree with your comments. Existing functionality should be broken with this new proposal.
>
> But the TOOBIG response syntax does not convey the size supported by 
> the server
>
> resp-text-code =/ toobig-response-code / badurl-response-code 
> toobig-response-code = "TOOBIG"
>
> Reusing the TOOBIG response code with updated syntax like below solves 
> the issue
>
> toobig-response-code = " TOOBIG " [SP nz-number] resp-text-code /=  
> toobig-response-code
>
> Please share your comments.
>
> Regards,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Brandt [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 8:25 PM
> To: Jayantheesh S B; 'Alexey Melnikov'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: [imapext] [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage
>
> If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, a server that has already implemented CATENATE and now implements APPENDLIMIT is left in an ambiguous state whenever the limit is exceeded. If it returns [TOOBIG], then it's not compliant with the APPENDLIMIT recommendation. If it returns [APPENDLIMIT x] then it's returning an unexpected response to clients that have yet to implement APPENDLIMIT, thereby "breaking"
> existing functionality.
>
>
> On 12/9/14 5:16 PM, Jayantheesh S B wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> New response code APPENDLIMIT will be returned as part of SELECT response to convey per mailbox limit
>>    and APPEND command response, if the APPENTLIMIT size is exceeded.
>>
>> C: t2 SELECT INBOX
>> S: * 172 EXISTS
>> S: * OK [APPENDLIMIT 257890] Maximum upload limit
>> S: [...]
>> S: t2 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
>>
>> C: t1 APPEND "Draft" (\SEEN \DRAFT) {98994952}
>> S: t1 NO [APPENDLIMIT 257890] Exceeds the maximum allowed size
>>
>> Whereas TOOBIG response, does not covey the size restriction applied by the server.
>>
>>    resp-text-code =/ toobig-response-code / badurl-response-code
>>    toobig-response-code = "TOOBIG"
>>
>> We feel APPENDLIMIT response can convey per mailbox size restriction and it can overcome the limitation of TOOBIG response.
>>
>> Please share your thoughts.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jay

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext