Re: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+
Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20130327140405.Horde.xVBCOb0icPn4imuUgPQweQ2@bigworm.curecanti.org> |
Quoting Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>: > On 26 Mar 2013, at 23:03, Brandon Long <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And that limit is advertised via EHLO at SMTP time, but there's no >> mechanism for doing that with IMAP. > > Let's standardize a way to advertise such limit. I might have use > for it as well. Throwing out another idea: What about updating LITERAL+ and explicitly excluding its usage with APPEND. IMAP already has a mechanism for rejecting overly large appends - NO response to APPEND command continuation request - so would be nice to leverage this feature instead of adding a new one. Regardless... it probably makes sense for any server to return the LIMIT response code in this situation since this is a textbook example of an "operation [that] ran up against an implementation limit of some kind". michael _______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol