Has anyone heard of any practical problems associated with generating
the new RFC3501 passim-style CAPABILITY untagged responses to
connections and LOGIN commands? I realize that any client that has a
problem with this is by definition a broken client, but pragmatically if
there is a widely-used client that *does* have a problem, I'm going to
field a significant proportion of the tech support burden associated with
it, so I want to be reasonably sure that I'm not opening myself to
something that might come back to bite me later by implementing this.
I'm almost certain that UW-IMAP generates these responses - Mark,
have you heard of any clients that misbehave because of this
behaviour?
Cheers!
-- David --
------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612
Quote for the day:
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such
wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
--Mark Twain
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see:
http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
