Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

2010-08-21 Thread David Woodhouse
Please don't drop me from Cc when replying to my messages. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: Hi everyone, On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote: On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

2010-08-18 Thread Christian Hilberg
Hi everyone, On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote: On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to get things running. In

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

2010-08-18 Thread chen
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: Hi everyone, On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote: On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the evolution-kolab developers) could

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

2010-08-05 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to get things running. In this case, would our additions be pulled upstream? As an

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

2010-08-04 Thread Christian Hilberg
Hi again. On Monday 26 July 2010 Christian Hilberg wrote: while I suspect the answer will most likely be no, just to be sure I'd like to put the question here anyway (if only for the record): Does the Camel IMAPX implementation comply with RFC5464 The IMAP METADATA Extension [1] ? [...] [1]