Re: The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension
Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20150218140355.Horde.TBUCA3b0cT4AmkFpaBEZMA1@bigworm.curecanti.org> |
Quoting [email protected]: > If a client wants what appendlimit offers, it can just send an > append without literal+, right? I tend to agree that APPENDLIMIT that doesn't provide a precise size doesn't provide anything better than the current situation of simply not using literal+ for APPENDs. I think that if the append limit is static on a server and can be provided with the CAPABILITY string, that is a win. And I have no issues with providing a client-side way of *proactively* requesting the limit for a mailbox via STATUS. But passively including this information in SELECT/EXAMINE responses is a poor decision if that data is not accurate. As a client author, I would ignore APPENDLIMIT if it is not 100% accurate since there is a chance that I might actually be able to add the message notwithstanding the value provided. michael ___________________________________ Michael Slusarz [[email protected]] _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext