Re: [Imap-protocol] Working around the evils of LITERAL+
Pete Maclean <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
If we have to submit to per-mailbox limits then another idea would be to add a MAXAPPENDSIZE item to the STATUS command. This could perhaps be a 64-bit value like HIGHESTMODSEQ. And it could be set to zero to indicate that the mailbox cannot accept APPENDs at all. Pete Maclean At 10:30 PM 3/27/2013, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >On 2013-03-27, at 3:27 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > So .. maybe a per-mailbox limit isn't that useful. I was mainly > thinking about different users having different limits, causing > shared mailboxes to have different limits. Or maybe some other > special mailboxes with special rules. > >Why not require the server to issue a [LITERALPLUSSIZE nnn] whenever >the server's state changes the value it's prepared to deal >with. That makes it agnostic to any existing and future extensions. > >You could then set limits by user, by folder, by user+folder, >etc. Lots of flexibility, and it never has to be updated for >follow-on capabilities. (I run in fear of the 64-bit proposal.) > >--lyndon > >_______________________________________________ >Imap-protocol mailing list >[email protected] >http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol _______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol