On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 07:39:20PM -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > I chose to move all my stuff over to Google Apps Standard Edition and > have been very happy so far. Great spam filtering, web interface, > IMAP-SSL access, etc.
I wonder if they have improved their IMAP implementation in the past couple years. See also: "Gmail's Buggy IMAP Implementation" from Opera Software's lead QA for Opera Mail a couple years ago: <http://weblog.timaltman.com/archive/2008/02/24/gmails-buggy-imap-implementation> He links to a 2007 Wired Magazine article, "IMAP, YouMAP, WeMAP: Mail Protocol's Proponents Argue for Better Support," about the IMAP specification's author's feelings about Gmail's implementation: <http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/10/imap> More analysis from a couple years ago: <http://pvanhoof.be/blog/index.php/2008/03/03/a-few-months-of-google-imap-lets-evaluate> >> Take a look at GMailâs CAPABILITY line if you think that Google >> is the God of good, the great and the brave. Their IMAP server >> is probably one of the poorest imaginable. You would think that >> Google would want to make a name for itself by introducing a >> really good IMAP server? Given that they hired thousands really >> excellent software developers and even at least one of the >> people who have been really closely involved in the creation of >> the IMAP standard, you would expect that. No? >> >> Well, no. For Google itâs only the words âIMAPâ and âsupportâ >> that really matter. Just to get the sound of those two words in >> the minds of the people, and then thatâs it. Nonetheless for >> IMAPâs name-reputation itâs actually good that Google did this. >> Googleâs IMAP server doesnât really show what a modern IMAP >> server would be capable of. >> >> To show this, it lacks capabilities like COMPRESS and/or do >> compression over TLS. It lacks capabilities like CONDSTORE, >> QRESYNC and BINARY. It will probably not adopt anything the >> Lemonade group is doing at this moment, like CONVERT and >> NOTIFY. It also doesnât do TLS correctly: it only supports >> wrapped mode for SSL. Making it hard for E-mail client >> developers to standardize on data encryption. And what about >> THREAD, SORT, UIDPLUS? >> >> Probably because otherwise people would make fun of Googleâs >> IMAP team, it looks like they did make it support IDLE. >> >> Not very surprisingly are they offering mobile E-mail solutions >> that use their secret closed protocol. So much for Google being >> the most cool company humans ever created. In a way, they are >> doing exactly the same as Microsoft once did with embrace and >> extend. But in a more subtile way. In such a way that people >> keep believing: but hey, Google is cool! Summer of code! yeej! >> They do IMAP! And XMPP! Open formats! Open protocols! >> >> Well, Microsoft does IMAP too. Their IMAP support in Exchange >> is actually better than Googleâs IMAP server. Itâs hard to be >> worse than Microsoftâs support for open protocols, but to get >> away with it for free? Just like any other IMAP server >> implementer has Microsoft got some of their things wrong. They >> usually actually do fix this. Weâll see how Google will play >> their IMAP game. Iâm for sure going to be critical, no matter >> what. -- Phil Mocek
