Subject: [lemonade] 2192bis: URLAUTH in relative IMAP URLs

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:32:08 +0100

Hi,
Is there any particular reason to allow relative IMAP URLs to contain 
URLAUTH signatures? (GENURLAUTH only uses absolute IMAP URLs, while 
CATENATE only uses relative IMAP URLs with no URLAUTH.) If not, I would 
like to remove the URLAUTH part from relative URLs in 2192bis.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Is there any particular reason to allow relative IMAP URLs to contain URLAUTH 
> signatures? (GENURLAUTH only uses absolute IMAP URLs, while CATENATE only 
> uses relative IMAP URLs with no URLAUTH.) If not, I would like to remove the 
> URLAUTH part from relative URLs in 2192bis.

As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead.  But get other, more informed, 
input before doing so.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.