Lucio Crusca writes:
Actually I already suspected that no RFC said what a MUA should do with
messages. However Gmail is accessible via POP/IMAP also. AFAICT the same
messages are lost also when accessing gmail via POP/IMAP, and in that case
GMail is not only a MUA and it does break
Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
I don't think so. Perhaps MUA is the wrong term for a message store
in the cloud, but the fact is that Gmail is the final recipient as
far as the RFCs are concerned. Eg, IMAP servers often implement SIEVE
recipes and spam filtering, so some messages will be lost.
On Thursday 09 August 2012, Lucio Crusca wrote:
I'd only like to slap gmail in the face if I could, by
working around their wonderful feature, just for the taste of feeling
smarter than they pretend to be. All in all, what is hacking about if
not that?
Please do! Gmail user only because my
Lucio Crusca writes:
Again, that's not the point and we basically agree gmail is bad,
but... a standard is some set of commonly accepted rules. Be it
written down into a RFC or not.
It doesn't need to be in an RFC, but it must be written. What is
commonly accepted is simply not a standard
On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:11 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Well, unfortunately Gmail is closed-source and I don't know what the
full algorithm is. Surely Message-Id is part of it, but evidently
there are other aspects to it, or the behavior you and Brad
R. describe wouldn't
Brad Knowles writes:
I really don't think that this is a disk storage issue, I think
this is much more likely to be a wrong-headed idea that this kind
of thing will be beneficial to the users -- after all, they know
that they sent the message and that copy is sitting in the outbox,
so
