Re: [lemonade] Why we should let the IMAP specification become more rich, rather than poor

[Philip Van Hoof <spam at pvanhoof.be>]

On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 13:17 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

> ps. I don't care how good the extensions behind XYZZY are. Not specified
> in an open way means that they don't exist for my E-mail clients. 

Would it make sense to claim in the RFC that you MUST NOT call yourself
an IMAP server if you advertise capabilities that are not publicized as
either RFC or in proposal at IETF?

Opinion:

For me that would make a lot of sense. I don't really like how Google is
polluting the CAPABILITY line with their closed things (again, no matter
how funny they pick the capability names).

They can call it GMAP, whatever.

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade