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

Neil Hunsperger answers me:
> That's a great question about avoiding propagating existing 
> protocol violations. My goal was to avoid introducing more 
> protocol violations. Looking at the IMAP fetch responses, it 
> appears to me that the server can always send the original email 
> content in a literal to follow RFC 3501's own syntax.

That's true, but that doesn't follow 5322's syntax, and I don't see any 
permission in 3501 to ignore what 5322 says. Or 2822, or 4422/2222, or...

The case Brandon has is similar: The client introduces a violation and the 
server's straightforward error response propagates that. I did the same 
this summer, when I decided that if a client sends an errant SMTP command 
that includes non-ASCII, that client grants the server permission to use 
non-ASCII in the error message too (in the code I wrote that would be 
"parse error near ære", "will not relay to ære@være.høye" or similar).

> I'm not sure if you were asking about a server deeply parsing 
> email content for the purpose of protecting the client from 
> 8-bit content found where RFC 5322 disallows it.

No, I'm asking whether you have a sensible argument for arguing that the 
server must take the MUSTs in some RFCs seriously and can ignore the MUSTs 
in others.

Arnt

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