Re: [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage

On 10/12/2014 01:25, Stuart Brandt wrote:
> 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.
Clients are supposed to ignore response codes they don't understand. I 
think this general rule from RFC 3501 works in practice.

As far as the APPENDLIMIT draft is concerned, I am wondering if it 
should mention CATENATE explicitly?
> 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