Charles Lindsey wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Crispin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But clients that interoperate with IMAP usually also have the capability
to interoperate with POP3, SMTP, NNTP and maybe even UUCP. I have never
seen any suggestion that those other servers are in any
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Sorry, but I am already on so many mailing lists that I cannot
manage any more.
You can subscribe without receiving postings by sending mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following body:
subscribe imap FirstName LastName
set imap mail postpone
end
This will enable you
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Crispin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I am sorry, but the IMAP list doesn't seem to accept messages from me.
You need to subscribe to the IMAP mailing list. You had better do so if
you wish to continue to propose incompatible
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Tony Shadwick wrote:
Uh, it's not Pine's problem. It's IMAP's. Users using Outlook Express,
SquirrelMail, Entourage, KMail, all have the same problem. When
connecting to the server via IMAP the inbox shows up as empty, whereas if
they read mail using pine, all the inbox
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Dan Kohn wrote:
I believe actual use of Usenet diverged from RFC 1036 because the latter
didn't support internationalized (i18n) headers or i18n newsgroup names.
As a result, most international users started sending a hodgepodge of
different, unlabeled charsets, which
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I am sorry, but the IMAP list doesn't seem to accept messages from me.
You need to subscribe to the IMAP mailing list. You had better do so if
you wish to continue to propose incompatible changes to IMAP in order to
accomodate your proposed changes to
Andrew Gierth wrote about
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kohn-news-article-00.txt
saying:
it also fails to address any of the issues which have resulted in
actual use of Usenet diverging from the previous specification.
I believe actual use of Usenet diverged from RFC 1036 because
For what it's worth, I agree with all of Ken's points.
I'm not certain what Usefor is attempting to accomplish. If the goal
is IETF standardization of a message format which is incompatible with
the message format of other protocols, then Usefor has set itself an
impossible goal.
Kohn's draft
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:30:10 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said...
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I don't think the last vestiges of just send 8-bits using non-UTF-8
character sets and no MIME tagging are being exterminated, or
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I don't think the last vestiges of just send 8-bits using non-UTF-8
character sets and no MIME tagging are being exterminated, or ever will
be. At the moment they seem to be well entrenched in Usenet, especially
in the Chinese newsgroups, and no
Mark Crispin wrote:
I recommend instead that USEFOR confine its efforts to NNTP updates and
RFC2822 extensions specific to news, and get a charter going on a WG
dedicated to UTF-8 extension to messaging.
I would be very much interested in participating in such a working group,
and feel
Hi Charles -
Thank you very much for your email. I have bounced it to the IMAP mailing
list. This response is also going to the IMAP mailing list.
I agree that it is desirable to transition towards a future in which
mailbox names, email addresses, newsgroup names, and header texts are
8-bit
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 02:14, Mark Crispin wrote:
The other choices are CRAM-MD5, DIGEST-MD5, which basically involve
storing plaintext equivalents of the authentication credentials on the
server.
DIGEST-MD5 stores MD5 sum of user:realm:password on server, which I
wouldn't call plaintext
13 matches
Mail list logo
