Subject: [imap5] I'd like to drop...

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:10:49 +0200

1. LSUB and its friends. No argument needed.

2. BODY/BODYSTRUCTURE. It would be necessary to replace them with 
something, e.g. a fetch item to return the part numbers or a fetch item 
such as '*.HEADER.FIELDS (...)'.

This would make the part number the only way to reference a part. (BODY 
uses position within a list instead of the number, and there is a 
defined algorithm to convert from from position to number and back. IMO 
it would be better to have just the number and drop the conversion.)

3. Something about mailboxes and the hierarchy. Not sure what. I just 
think it seems to cause more misunderstandings than it ought to.

4. \Recent, FLAGS and PERMANENTFLAGS. Mandate support for permanent 
flags, drop session flags, define whether flags are user-private or shared.

5. BAD? I don't see a very strong need for having both NO and BAD, but 
that doesn't seem to be a big problem.

6. LOGIN and PREAUTH. AUTHENTICATE and EXTERNAL exist.

7. MSNs. I put that last because I like MSNs. But I don't think we 
really need both MSNs and UIDs, and UIDs are more useful than MSNs.

(Sorry if something isn't understandable, I'm feeling rather woolly-headed.)

Arnt
_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 03:18:41 -0700

> really need both MSNs and UIDs, and UIDs are more useful than MSNs.

I think getting rid of sequence numbers can lead to a slew of 
downstream simplifications.  For example, no more ban on sending 
EXPUNGE/VANISHED while non-UID command is in progress.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Nothing is as irritating as a man who chats pleasantly while he's
overcharging you.                                   --Kin Hubbard
_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:45:09 +0300

On Aug 1, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> 3. Something about mailboxes and the hierarchy. Not sure what. I  
> just think it seems to cause more misunderstandings than it ought to.

Maybe require to use some specific rarely used hierarchy separator  
(like ^)?

Also perhaps finally drop the support for obsolete mail stores (non- 
dual-use, \Noinferiors)? And define the LIST reply more explicitly to  
make it clearer to clients: require ordering so that parent mailboxes  
are listed before children. Require listing each hierarchy (if there's  
only "foo.bar.baz" LIST * must list foo and foo.bar also). Remove LIST  
reference parameter.

I wouldn't mind if there were some requirements for namespaces too,  
like specifying that private mailboxes are always under <whatever>  
namespace.

Remove \Marked vs \Unmarked from LIST?