On 6 Jan 2004 at 8:16, Mark Crispin wrote:
> IMAP tries to reconcile multiple forms of mail store with sharply
> different semantics. Rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no
> such thing as an IMAP "ideal" mail store.
>
> IMAP's definition of hierarchy is a wretched compromise born out of at
> least a year of non-productive discussions with me caught in the middle.
> Those who suffered through it (including me!) are not particularly
> interested in seeing these discussions reopened.
I think that this discussion indicates that at the very least some
documented clarification is required... I can't see anything in RFC3501
that would give any hint that a mailbox may have a trailing hierarchy
delimiter in some cases, nor what that would mean, and I certainly can't
see any indication that LIST responses can contain implied hierarchy:
these are very significant issues for a client developer and have a major
impact on the way that mailbox listing code has to be written (I've
already had to make significant changes to my client code as a result of
this discussion).
I'd offer to write such a document myself except for two things:
1: I don't consider myself enough of an IMAP expert to be qualfied for
the task.
2: Since in 14 years of developing e-mail packages I've never once
been invited to participate in any IETF discussions of any kind, I have
always assumed that I am somehow persona non grata and that any
offer of this kind from me would therefore be unwelcome.
I'm not unwilling to volunteer, but (1) means that I would need quite a lot
of guidance, and (2) means that I don't expect to be required.
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
Phrase found in a Soviet Russian-English language guide:
"Flying in the TU-114 I felt myself excellently."
