On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 13:17 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > This is a personal opinion. > > With Lemonade we finally have the opportunity to improve the IMAP spec > and to let IMAP servers advertise richness of features in a marketing- > meaningful way. > > My opinion is that we have seen four kinds of IMAP servers: > > - Free software ones that get a lot right > - Free software ones that get most (or at least a lot) wrong > - Commercial ones that get most right > - Commercial ones that are actually trying to sell their closed protocol > instead, but offer a crippled "old IMAP" interface for marketing > purposes (we do IMAP too, look at us!) I had hoped that maybe at some point my imaptest tool's results could motivate at least some servers to get themselves more compliant: http://imapwiki.org/ImapTest/ServerStatus The "failures" number may be somewhat inflated for some servers, because the tests don't currently always uniquely test a single thing, but for example if \Recent flag handling isn't correct multiple tests can fail. Also the 34 as maximum should probably be changed at some point to the actual number of commands that tested successfully, instead of the number of files that tested things (which contain about 1-30 tests each). I was also planning on writing tests for Lemonade extensions at some point, but since I haven't implemented half of Lemonade yet myself there hasn't been much motivation yet.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade