Mark,
Thanks for that insightful mail. I was also contemplating the 'Whys' and
'Why-nots'
before I drafted that mail, which is the reason I got curious to get the
authoritative word on it.
I for one like to see software/applications/technologies evolve and would
like to catch
the drift much before it does so. So please point me to the right
forums/lists where these
issues were hashed out and let me have a read first of those arguments. So
that I do not
steal your precious time with my possibly trivial questions.
Once again thanks for your mail.
-Dister.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Mark Crispin <[email protected]>wrote:
> For many years, there have been various proposals to add mail sending
> capabilities to mail access protocols such as POP and IMAP.
>
> These proposals are always strongly opposed. It is one of the "attractive
> nuisances" of email protocols. The value of the capability is obvious to
> many people, but the high cost of having it in POP or IMAP is much less
> obvious.
>
> I am one of the opponents. For the past 25 or so years we have been in the
> overwhelming majority. It is quite unlikely that this concensus will
> change. If anything, it has become stronger in recent years.
>
> Typically a proponent implements it unilaterally in a single server (such
> as Courier) and possibly also a client, and then expects everybody else to
> follow his lead as a fait accompli. That hasn't happened. It isn't a
> question of "can" (in the technical sense); it's a question of "should". Or
> rather, "should not"/"must not"...
>
> This is not the proper forum for discussing the arguments for/against the
> capability. In the proper forums, it has been hashed and rehashed to death.
> If anyone wants to bring it up again in the proper forums, be my guest; but
> don't be surprised if you get pummelled into submission. ;-)
>
> If you're just curious as to the reasons, and don't wish to argue it, I'll
> gladly explain in private email (offline from the list).
>
> If you're not really that curious, suffice it to say that the people who
> design the protocols and systems understand the attraction but have
> excellent reasons not to do it.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://panda.com/mrc
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
>
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
