Subject: Re: Detailed server documentation

From: "Russ Atkind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 17:50:46 -0500

--On Tuesday, March 24, 1998, 2:40 PM -0800 "Chris Newman"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> If you wrote a client based on assumptions from such a list, then your
> client will break against a compliant server someone may write in the
> future and it will be your fault.  Therefore, I assume you don't need this
> information for your client, but are simply asking out of curiosity.

That's true.  However, it can sometimes be hard to see every
angle/possibility allowed by the spec, especially when inexperienced in
writing against complex protocols.  I certainly will not engineer the client
to depend on a specific choice within a set of allowed behaviors, but I had
darn better make sure that I didn't miss some possibility, especially one
that is implemented in one of the most widely deployed servers.

Russ

---

From: "Russ Atkind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:31:16 -0500

--On Wednesday, March 25, 1998, 3:21 AM +0300 "Alexey Melnikov"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> Chris, you remind me that I wanted to ask you about the status of
NAMESPACE
> draft. Did your know any server, that implemented it?
> 
> BTW: I suggest to create special web page (at www.imap.org? or I can
suggest
> website of my firm as alternative), describing extensions, supported by
different
> servers/clients. This will prevent people from asking many times : "Who
> implemented extension XXX?". Has this idea any interest?
> 

I, for one, think this would be really helpful -- in fact, you might even
have seen me asking that very question sometime soon.