Subject: Re: [imap5] No way to IMAP5?

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:17:46 +1000

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:59 -0700, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
> 
> I'm not sure that an IMAP "mailbox" maps to a user "folder" since in 
> IMAP a mailbox can be what is thought of as a folder (it has 
> children) or it can be closer to a file, but I suppose this depends 
> on how one thinks of messages.

Enough clients and discussions I've seen use the two words pretty
much interchangeably.

> I think the main argument in favor of IMAP5 is indeed that IMAP4 is 
> too complex, it is too hard for clients to get right, and is too 
> confusing.  New, higher-order functionality only adds to the 
> complexity by introducing too many options and code paths.

The options are the worst bit.  You can't rely on any random "IMAP4"
server supporting particular functions, and some of the interactions
between the extensions are messy and unclear - so the easiest path
is just to use the lowest common denominator functionality because
it saves maintaining two codepaths.

> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by verify message integrity -- are 
> you concerned that messages are being corrupted?

You're not?  We get a couple a month over a few million mailboxes.
Maybe ZFS would be better...

Bron.
-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  [email-masked]