Pete Maclean (aaddict@maclean.com)
Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:43:34 -0500
> > As an IMAP server developer, the one enhancement I would most like to see
> > made to IMAP is something to address this issue. I have to deal with
> users
> > who have what IMAP refers to as "Inbox" actually named "In", "Incoming",
> > "Posteingang", etc.
>
>You're confused :-)
That's not unusual :-)
>This is not a server or protocol issue. This is a
>client issue. Localization / personalization of the INBOX is an client
>issue and MUST be dealt with there.
Why must it be dealt with in the client? Sorry, I am not trying to be
difficult; I really want to understand. Sure, clients could be made
configurable so that a user could name his INBOX anything he chooses. But
why when that could be centralized at the server? This is especially
significant for transient use of clients such as when someone pops into an
Internet cafe they'll visit only once in their lives to check their mail.
What if a user regularly uses several different clients that use different
names for we are referring to as INBOX? Why should he have to deal with
"Incoming" here, "In" there, and "Inbox" somewhere else?
Please understand that I am not making a fuss about this because I think
it's a big deal -- I don't think it's a big deal at all. It's just that I
think that if any changes are made to IMAP related to folder naming then I
think it would be terrible to miss the opportunity to improve this situation.
>There is such a mechanism -- the canonical name INBOX. The client is
>absolutely free to map this however they choose.
Exactly my point. I want the *user* to be absolutely free to map this,
independently of any client.
Cheers,
Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 13 2001 - 20:44:19 IST