> What I want most from IMAP5 is a marketing word that says: THIS set of > modern capabilities IS an IMAP5 server. Once adopted E-mail clients > could far more easily consume the modern things: > > It's a guarantee for quality for the user of your E-mail client: it's > IMAP5, so it's okay. That is an utterly hopeless cause. No matter what the protocol says is mandatory, you will have server implementors who do whatever they damn well wish even if it violates the protocol. In some cases, such as Microsoft, it is a legitimate blunder. You just have to spend weary years getting them to take the problem seriously. In other cases, such as Google, it is intentional. During my recent job search, I was lectured that I had to get over this quaint notion that interoperability is important or even desirable. Because of this, I have become convinced that it is hopeless to do anything in open standards beyond a general framework. Complex behaviors such as IMAP semantics are hopeless until such time as the EU (or some other legal authority) imposes fines on vendors for standards non-compliance. Until that time, there is no protocol police, nor is there any guarantee that IMAP4, IMAP5, or IMAP69 means anything other than some vague resemblance to what the document purportedly says. -- Mark -- _________________________________________________________________ Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list imap5 at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.