On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 20:51, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > Anyway, the long repeated BODY[...] texts in replies probably eat away > > all potential bandwidth savings, but it would allow interested clients > > to fetch some extra MIME fields without extra round trips. > > Which "extra MIME fields" are there that are of importance to you?
Body location was added to BODYSTRUCTURE in RFC3501. Are you going to keep adding new fields to it whenever new useful fields are invented? I think letting future clients specify what they need would be better in the long run. Servers aren't going to be upgraded to newer BODYSTRUCTURE reply immediately either. Well, one possibly useful field would be References header in message/rfc822 body parts. I'm myself happy enough with BODYSTRUCTURE for now. I'm not sure about future.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
