On 7 Apr 2004 at 18:42, Mark Crispin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Your server isn't helping matters by flushing the TCP buffer. Nothing in
> the IMAP specification that justifies doing so, and I don't think that you
> should do so. Nevertheless, your server *is* compliant as-is.
It's a convenience thing; because I know that a compliant client will wait
for my continuation request before submitting raw data, I can short-cut
some internal stuff and just dump anything left in the line buffer.
It wouldn't take me a huge amount of effort to change this - the point of
my question was really to work out whether or not there was any real
justification for me doing so.
Like I say, in a situation where the client follows the rules, this isn't an
issue. It's only because the client has chosen *not* to follow the rules
that the matter has arisen at all.
> I am a bit offended by the client author's assertation that your
> server is "broken" because it does not accomodate non-compliant
> behavior that he alleges is "common Internet practice."
I see this several times a week now - usually more in respect to
Pegasus Mail than Mercury; the plaintive wailing of "Outlook does it that
way, so that means you're obliged to accommodate it" has now just
become a droning background noise that I barely notice any more.
*sigh*.
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
Real newspaper headlines from US Papers:
"Autos killing 110 a day, let's resolve to do better".
