Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:13:30 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Where in RFC3501 does it say that the server needs to maintain
this trailing-hierarchy-separator convention?
The semantics of hierarchy vis a vis % were discussed in great
--On Monday, February 03, 2003 11:28 AM -0500 Cyrus Daboo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The domain-in-userid already provides the same benefits with the added
advantage of not having to change clients. I'm afraid I still don't see
the benefit of VHOST. Perhaps other server vendors can explain
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:30:34 -0500
From: Cyrus Daboo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
That's not all that is necessary. First clients need a way to discover the
name of a mailbox with an associated ID. Second, it would be more useful if
commands that currently take mailbox names could
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:01:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Sure. And I don't think I've said anything that would indicate otherwise.
The keyword in my comment above was *LESS* resource intensive. Using
multiple
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:38:04 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
I believe the only safe implementation of RENAME is one that creates a new
mailbox, copies all messages to that new mailbox, and then deletes the
source mailbox. The client can
--On Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:41 AM -0800 Mark Crispin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 13:39:16 -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
[proposed improved algorithm]
This should probably be done as a
separate THREAD=XXX option.
To make things unambiguous:
I strongly support this. My
--On Friday, January 10, 2003 6:59 PM +0100 Arnt Gulbrandsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cyrus Daboo writes:
However, I will again voice my annoyance with the fact that the
THREAD=REFERENCES extension does any kind of grouping based on
subject.
Seconded!
THREAD=REFERENCES is its name, so why
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:18:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:14:54 -0500, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
Note: a server implementation MUST implement a
configuration
Although that weasel-wording helps previous
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
If that is the case, would there be any objection to folding the MULTIAPPEND
draft into the base specification? Unlike other extensions, MULTIAPPEND is
not a new command; it is an obvious
The references section has been split (which I think makes sense).
The normative part of the references:
The following documents contain definitions or specifications which
are necessary to understand this document properly:
contain references to
[IMAP-IMPLEMENTATION] Leiba, B. IMAP
10 matches
Mail list logo
