Re: [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage
Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20141218122246.Horde.9kvC-_thX4wwso7qwAfvVw1@bigworm.curecanti.org> |
Quoting Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>: > On 17/12/2014 12:01, Michael M Slusarz wrote: > >> - Section 2 says a "client SHALL not try to upload mail more than >> advertised limit in the APPEND command.". I would think that >> should be MUST, not SHALL. If a client understands APPENDLIMIT, it >> knows the maximum size the server would accept. Sending data over >> this limit is explicitly ignoring process/resource limits >> advertised by the server. > SHALL and MUST have the same meaning according to RFC 2119. That is what I get for sending my message as I'm about to board a plane. You are correct, although FWIW it's one man's opinion that MUST is clearer than SHALL for this kind of language. >> - There's discussion of LIST + STATUS (RFC 5819). But this is >> actually an addition to STATUS itself. The spec should be written >> as extending STATUS, and then a discussion/example of how this can >> be used if 5819 is supported. (If we want to force an APPENDLIMIT >> client/server to also be LIST-STATUS compliant for performance >> reasons, that's fine. But seems to be a policy decision rather >> than a technical explanation.) > This section is not quite right, but I need to rereview it in more details. Looks like you covered this in your subsequent review. In short, APPENDLIMIT status selector needs to be added to status-att, which is extending 3501. From an implementation point of view, the STATUS case makes more sense than the LIST-STATUS case anyway. A client /could/ add the APPENDLIMIT status return when creating the folder tree, but that's probably just wasted bandwidth since generally a client is only going to be appending to a small number of those mailboxes (i.e. a sent-mail mailbox). I would imagine the most common behavior is that a client would grab the append limit before it's first append, and it is less expensive to issue "STATUS mailbox (APPENDLIMIT)" than a LIST command with APPENDLIMIT return in that situation since the status info is all that is needed. michael ___________________________________ Michael Slusarz [[email protected]] _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext