Re: Three kinds of IMAP extensions

Hi Arnt,

Please find the response inline. 

Regards,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: imapext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arnt Gulbrandsen
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [imapext] Three kinds of IMAP extensions

Jayantheesh S B writes:
> [Jay] On a mobile client it is very easy and frequent to attach a 
> video to a mail and save.
> We, as a mobile client, have observed many instances where user attach 
> a big files (video most of the time) and save the mail to their Drafts 
> folder.
> In fact, this was our primary motive behind this proposal.

So what's the proper limit to avoid this, then? Since this limit is set at the server, it applies both to the battery-powered phone whose owner pays per byte when on mobile data, and for the mains-powered chromebook with a gigabit-plus 801.11ac Wave2 connection.

For clients who are willing to implement something to limit data usage, it sounds easier to add a limit based on the power/connection status than on a server configuration. For clients who aren't willing it really doesn't matter.


[Jay] I feel that having a client side prevention check is not a better solution. It's not just about the mobile device's resources, here we are considering the server side resources too.
According to your input, we can even have a similar argument for ESMTP SIZE extension, where clients are not allowed to exceed a certain size irrespective of mobile or desktop environment.

Also if every client will add a limit of its own (based on its proprietary solution), it might not be a uniform behavior. 
For clients who are not willing to implement APPENDLIMIT, it's up to them to have their own solution. 


Arnt

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

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