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 changes to IMAP in order to >accomodate your proposed changes to NNTP. Sorry, but I am already on so many mailing lists that I cannot manage any more. I am already spending so many hours per day reading and replying to this list that I have no time left for doing what I am supposed to be doing, which is preparing texts for this WG to consider. However, I think our discussions so far have been useful, in that they show that if/when UTF-8 get into news (or email), some extension to IMAP will need to be part of the package, and we have established some features that would be needed in such a package and others that would need further discussion. I think the next job is to clarify that "if/when" bit, which means negotiating with the IESG. After that we can come back to writing an IMAP extension in full knowledge of what it will have to accomplish. So for the moment, I have included my original proposed extension in the draft, but marked as "highly tentative". It is just a placeholder for now, to indicate that the job needs to be done properly at some stage. When the time comes to do that, I will gladly join your IMAP list while the gory details get worked out. But the fundamental discussions of what is or is not in Usefor belong here, not on the IMAP list. >Your message had a header of "Newsgroups: local.usefor" which is >unreplyable. There is no such newsgroup as "local.usefor" here at the >University of Washington. Now I find that remark odd. Like many others on this list, I gateway my mailing lists into local newsgroups for convenience of handling. Not surprisingly, the evidence of that is visible when gatewayed back into the list. But that should not affect your ability to reply. The Newsgroups header currently has no defined meaning within email, though it is commonly used as an informational header to indicate that a message has been posted and mailed (and the Usefor draft will confirm that usage) and sometimes to indicate other things (which Usefor will deprecate). So I don't see why your system should even contemplate "replying" to "local.usefor". >Please use interoperable headers, which in the case of Usefor would be a >To: or cc: address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I emailed two copies of that message, one using the "cc to poster" feature on my news agent, which would have included "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" and one to the Usefor list using "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Both would have had my usual "From: ...". Both fully compliant AFAICS. I am still not sure whether you are subscribed to this list, so I shall do the same with this reply. If the headers you receive look wrong, then please send them back to me. >I am a regular user of Usenet. I am also an implementor of Usenet >software. Good! A quick Googling shows that you read a wide variety of groups, and post regularly. Which, sadly, is not the case with some others who have come here and tried to tell us how to do our job. >There are clients which WILL NOT WORK if the server sends non-compliant >data. The author of the IMAP server may attempt to weasel out with the >GIGO argument, but if the server got such data and the client won't >swallow it then it becomes the server's problem to fix it. I don't follow that argument at all. I am unaware of any client that will "fail to swallow" 8bit input, though many clients will fail to "digest" it in that they will display nonsense characters. 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 way obligated to "fix" things that the client is unable to swallow/digest. Nor is it the case that those servers commonly make any attempt to filter out content that is deemed non-compliant (they MAY so filter if they wish, but they are not obligated to do so). So why is IMAP singled out for these extra obligations? >Nevertheless, we're not talking about "garbage in" here, though. The >incoming "garbage" is something that would be sanction as valid data if >UTF-8 in headers is standardized. The result is "valid data in, garbage >out", and it would impact *every* IMAP server implementation. The only >thing worse than the notion of impacting every IMAP server implementation >is the notion of impacting every IMAP client implementation. No, if it was "valid in" according to a revised standard, then it would be "valid out" also. Usefor, just like RFC 2822, defines the format of valid messages to be passsed between systems, and that includes between server and client. Of course, it is not precluded that particular servers and clients make some alternative arrangement to their mutual satisfaction (for example, many news clients interact directly with the filesystem of their server), and if that includes a negotiable downsizing service then good luck to them. But, generally speaking, the client is in a better position to know what he wants or can tolerate, and so it is better for hime to choose an agent, or a configuration, that suits his needs. > >I don't *want* to provide a downgrading service. Then don't. >You propose something that, if standardized, would require me (and all >other IMAP implementors) to provide a downgrading service in order to >maintain interoperability with the current installed base of IMAP clients. >Is Usefor going to meet at the San Francisco IETF next month? I don't see >it on the agenda yet. No, Usefor has always been so geographically widespread that there seemed little point in arranging face-to-face meetings that few would be able to attend. Moreover, WG slots at IETF meetings are typically only an hour long, so you cannot do much real work in that time. But even if I were able to go (which I am not) I have no funding. But if there are other regular members of this group who live within range, then it could be useful to attend. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
