Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: usenet@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 7 Oct 2005 15:39:00 GMT
Mark Crispin <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, usenet@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ... and suffers from the same problem as virtually every other IMAP
> > client out there - it works best with a limited range of IMAP servers.
>
> "Works best with a limited range of IMAP servers", or "works best with
> standards-compliant IMAP servers"?
>
> > Personally I think this is the fundamental flaw in IMAP, it's not
> > tightly enough specified so IMAP servers vary quite a lot with the
> > result that it's well nigh impossible to write an IMAP client that
> > works well with them all.
>
> Can you point to anything in the IMAP specification that illustrates this
> point?
>
See http://dave.cridland.net/acap/polymer.html for example where it
says:-
IMAP allows a great deal of latitude in much of the specification. As
a result, some behaviour is rare, and relatively untested. As always
with IMAP, you should select a server and client which interoperate
well, supporting the features you require.
It then goes on to list IMAP servers that the client will work with,
with varying levels of performance.
Many/most people won't have a choice of IMAP servers.
My exeperience using mutt with different IMAP servers is that it never
works quite the same with different servers.
--
Chris Green
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: Dave Cridland
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: Mark Crispin
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- References:
- Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: Yiorgos Adamopoulos
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: kael
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: usenet
- Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- From: Mark Crispin
- Mulberry gone, now what?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- Next by Date: Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- Previous by thread: Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- Next by thread: Re: Mulberry gone, now what?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
