I have an IMAP client developer telling me that my server is broken
because I insist on the proper RFC3501 sequencing of steps when the
client submits a literal.
In short, he is saying that he can send the {<count>} followed by the
data in a single packet without waiting for the continuation command
from my server, and that I am broken because I won't accept that.
His claim is that this type of literal pipelining is "common Internet
practice" and that I should be more tolerant.
The reason I don't accept this type of single-packet literal delivery is
because I have to do an internal mode switch to accept a literal, and a
side-effect of that is that the internal TCP buffering I do gets flushed. I've
never been concerned about this in the past because the RFC states
clearly that the client MUST wait for the continuation response before
proceeding, so no issue has ever previously arisen as a result.
What is the consensus here? If you all think I'm being anal over this and
that I should just accept this type of single-packet literal, then I'll
consider modifying my tcp buffering code to allow it.
I'd also appreciate any comments on just how common an "Internet
practice" this type of pipelined literal really is.
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
In a Japanese road guide:
"Beware of greasy corner where lurk skid demon. Cease step on,
approach slowly, round cautiously, resume step on gradually."
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see:
http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
