13 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users[courier-users] Re: Question regardin...
FromSent OnAttachments
Tracy SnellAug 6, 2001 4:04 pm 
Sam VarshavchikAug 6, 2001 4:18 pm 
Tracy SnellAug 6, 2001 4:54 pm 
Sam VarshavchikAug 6, 2001 8:22 pm 
Bill MichellAug 7, 2001 12:46 am 
Tracy SnellAug 7, 2001 4:32 am 
Tracy SnellAug 7, 2001 4:33 am 
Bill MichellAug 7, 2001 5:16 am 
Sam VarshavchikAug 7, 2001 5:37 am 
Tracy SnellAug 7, 2001 11:45 am 
Mark BrownAug 8, 2001 6:47 am 
J. Patrick NarkinskyAug 8, 2001 7:19 am 
Mark BrownAug 8, 2001 9:11 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:[courier-users] Re: Question regarding RENAMEActions...
From:Sam Varshavchik (mrs@courier-mta.com)
Date:Aug 6, 2001 8:22:41 pm
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

Tracy Snell writes:

Am I missing something?

INBOX.a and INBOX.a. are two completely different entities.

Sorry about the confusing post! I'm still learning both the RFC and how Courier-imap (one rocking program!) works and this test confused me.

Thanks again!

Well, this is definitely a point of contention. This is how I interpret that part of RFC 2060. Other people interpret it differently, but in this case my opinion carries a wee bit more weight.

The bottom line is that RFC 2060 is one of the most poorly written RFC drafts that I've ever read. It has quite a few blatant errors, that are slated to be fixed in a revision at some future date. On top of that, IMAP, as a protocol, leaves much to be desired. People often wondering why, after eight years, there are only a handful of freely available IMAP servers (as compared to POP server or SMTP servers). They may also wonder why there are constant interoperability problems between various IMAP clients and servers. These people need only to read RFC 2060 from start to finish, to understand why this is so.

-- Sam