Re: [Imap-protocol] Seeking clarity on Gmail "Access for less secure apps" setting for non XOAuth2 access

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:43:16 PM CEST, Neil Hunsperger wrote:
> To elaborate on Brandon’s point, the issue is with following 
> IMAP’s ABNF. Base RFC 3501 strings are CHAR-based instead of 
> CHAR8-based. A UTF-8 response might not ever reach the client if 
> there is an IMAP proxy such as Symantec Desktop Email between 
> the client and server. I would strongly consider ensuring that 
> all server output can be parsed using the ABNF currently agreed 
> upon by the client and server.

1. This is about errors. There isn't much to lose if you're already in an 
error situation. As I said, the chance seems slight that the client could 
recover, but fails to recover merely because the human-readable text 
contains bytes outside the legal range.

2. Would you make the same argument about the other major grammar involved 
in IMAP: RFC5322? Or do you think it's okay for a server to just-send-8 
when a message violates the rules of RFC5322 and the client hasn't 
indicated that it can accept that?

Arnt

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol