Re: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+

a append inbox {60000000}
a BAD [ALERT] Message too large.
http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=8770

Which goes to that other issue between the updated responses codes not
being backward compatible with ALERT... which I guess I can just ignore
since most clients ignore ALERT anyways.

Brandon


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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<http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol>
>

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol