Re: The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension - version 04
Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKHUCzxmvCRfZf71Y+8dmZtXMk3nEEySv3wDf3wnf+4=j8urOA@mail.gmail.com> |
Ugh. Hit reply instead of reply to all. On 18 March 2015 at 19:47, Jayantheesh S B <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > Can you please share your views regarding the below item to come to a > consensus? > > 1. APPENDLIMIT value should be UINT32_MAX or UINT64_MAX ? > > UINT32_MAX. That's not to say another document couldn't raise this, but I strongly object to hiding this fundamental limit increase in an unrelated spec. > 2. APPENDLIMIT value in SELECT/STATUS response: Whether APPENDLIMIT is > needed in both SELECT and STATUS response? > > I think that APPENDLIMIT would probably benefit from not being mailbox-specific, but if the consensus is that this is needed, then put it in both. Also probably a response-code on a NO to APPEND. The draft needs examples for APPENDs, too. _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext