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

Quoting Timo Sirainen <[email protected]>:

> On 27.3.2013, at 22.33, Brandon Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> a append inbox {60000000}
>> a BAD [ALERT] Message too large.  
>> http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=8770
>
> NO, not BAD. Client didn't do anything syntactically wrong.
>
>> 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.
>
> * NO [ALERT] Message too large. http://...
> a NO [MAXSIZE 123456] Too large.
>
> Or vice versa.

Isn't MAXSIZE a METADATA specific response? (Maybe you were just using  
as a placeholder example...)

Also... I believe this has come up before but ALERTs aren't useful for  
providing directed feedback about an action.  Alerts only need to be  
displayed to the user - but there is no requirement how/when this  
would happen.  In the above example, there is no indication that the  
ALERT is somehow tied to the actual APPEND action.  So when a client  
eventually displays the alert to the user, it could be completely out  
of context to the activity of sending a message and might confuse the  
heck out of the end user.

michael

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