I don't want to start a flame war of any kind but I think the following quote (which I saw quoted on comp.mail.imap) deserves some response from the IMAP community, if only to re-evaluate IMAP's strengths and weaknesses:
"IMAP is just not a very rich protocol," Steve Conn, Exchange Server product manager, told ZDNet Australia during the company's Tech Ed conference.
I find that pretty strange argument against IMAP, assuming "rich" means "featureful". I'd say IMAP's biggest weakness is that the protocol is too difficult to understand and there's too many ways to mess up implementations accidentally.
I've been thinking about writing some pretty detailed guide to client writers, so that it would actually say what you're supposed to send to server, reasons why it can fail and how you're supposed to handle potential failures. But it's quite a lot of work and I don't know when I have time for it.
