Pete Maclean (aaddict@maclean.com)
Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:48:03 -0500
Lyndon,
> > This approach means we don't have to English-ize names and gets
> > around the problem of Outbox meaning two different things. The server
> > would respond with either the appropriate name or an indication that there
> > is no such thing.
>
>Wouldn't these be better solved with ACAP or IMSP?
I responded to this briefly before by saying I knew too little about ACAP
or IMSP to judge. I have now read up on ACAP and wish to respond more fully.
If my grasp of ACAP is correct (and please tell me if it is not) then the
answer is no. Not that the problem could not be solved with ACAP -- it
seems to me that it could -- but it does not seem an appropriate use of the
service. Would you expect an MUA to use ACAP to obtain a list of a user's
mail folders? I don't think so. And if that's not appropriate then, it
seems to me, that it does not fit the issue in question either.
I am puzzled by the responses to what I have posted. I am unclear if most
people agree with me, or if I have not explained my ideas well enough, or
what. The ACAP question suggests to me that I have not been clear
enough. To me it seems a glaringly obvious flaw.
Let me put it as simply as I can: Do you not think that it is unfortunate,
to say the least, that IMAP will faithfully and precisely deliver to an MUA
a list of all of a user's folders (as long as they have compatible names)
but will not identify the true name of what we generically call the Inbox,
the folder that is surely the most important for many users, indeed a
folder that the IMAP spec itself defines as "the primary mailbox for this
user on this server"?
Pete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Dec 17 2001 - 17:48:43 IST