On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Richard Bang wrote: > > Just for my upended worth. My implementation will never return either > > /Marked or /Unmarked. > > I see. Do you believe that deliberately thumbing your nose at the > protocol, as you say you will do, is the way to build interoperability or > create quality software?
Oh please. Since \Marked and \Unmarked are optional, not sending them is fully compliant *and* interoperable. As you know, the specification states that servers SHOULD NOT send them if doing the work to do so may be expensive. Of course, servers that fail to send them should be prepared to expect clients to ask for that information in another way (e.g. STATUS), so hopefully *THAT* operation will be cheap. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
