Subject: Re: [lemonade] binary?

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:48 +0100

On Sat Apr 22 00:39:07 2006, Randall Gellens wrote:
> What did we decide about BINARY?
> 
> 
Sorry for the silence, I noticed this one when going through looking 
for any issues or resolutions for Profile bis.

> I recall some discussions on issues/difficulties with the fetch 
> part (especially encrypted content), and some separate ones on the 
> append part that might require an annotatemore element to identify 
> mailboxes that can or cannot support it.  But I'm not sure where we 
> left things.  I do recall that binary fetch was shown to be a 
> bigger win than compression.

There was also interaction with CATENATE and LITERAL+.

I believe Lyndon Nerenberg has a complete list of issues, including 
those that I summarised for the list some time ago, but there's no 
new draft as yet. For now, I've essentially put IMAP BINARY as a MUST 
into my working copy of Profile Bis, and required that BINARY append 
"works" for any mailbox.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade