[Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
bill.shannon at sun.com
Tue Sep 12 14:10:06 PDT 2006
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> It's the difference between "good" and "correct". I'd start with
>> "correct" and work up to "good".
> I'd start with defining "good." The problem with a protocol as complex
> (some would say bloated) as IMAP is that -- from the client's
> perspective -- there is no one "right" way to use it. Different client
> implementations have different goals, and thus different demands of the
> server. In some cases it makes sense for the client to (say) talk to
> the server using a restricted feature set that, when examined without
> context, makes it look like the client is just a glorified POP engine.
Exactly, "good" is a value judgement, which makes it harder to define.
The spec should be very clear on what "correct" behavior is.
> And if you do ever manage to define "good" you then get to solve the
> problem of determining what constitutes "compliant" behaviour when faced
> with the n! permutations of extensions interacting with and without each
> This isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
Neither the spec nor the test suite need to be perfect to deliver great
value. I see a lot of basic functionality that's broken. A test suite
that tested those cases would make a huge difference. Specifying, and
testing, the esoteric corner cases can be done later.
More information about the Imap-protocol