Subject: Re: [imapext] Mail submission over IMAP

From: Jan Kundrát <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:09:53 +0200

Hi,
thanks for all the feedback I received. I've tried to incorporate that
in the updated draft which lives on [1].

In this iteration, I tried to focus on the "it can do what ESMTP can do"
aspect. I don't know whether it is a correct choice to support RET and
ENVID, and I hope people will tell me the answer. These can be removed
in future revisions if the consensus is that they are not needed/used.

So, does this extension have any chance of getting standardized and
supported?

With kind regards
Jan

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kundrat-imap-submit-00

-- 
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:42:02 -0400

> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kundrat-imap-submit-00
...
> So, does this extension have any chance of getting standardized and

...and...

> I haven't received much feedback on this incremental thread topic. The
> draft now lives on the IETF's web [1].
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kundrat-incthread-00

One answer to both of these is the same: right now, the focus on this
mailing list is on the imapmove working group, to get the IMAP MOVE
spec done.  It's up to the chairs how much other discussion they want
to have on the list, and so far they've allowed discussion of these
other topics, but neither of these specs is going to move toward
standardization at this point.

After the imapmove working group's work is done, we can consider doing
another fast chartering job if there's enough interest in pursuing one
or both of these.  You may certainly keep the drafts alive in the
meantime.  Just be aware that the ADs are not going to be putting them
through the standards process until imapmove is done, at least.

Barry, App AD

---

From: Jan Kundrát <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:50:21 +0200

> through the standards process until imapmove is done, at least.

I'm fine with that -- at this time, I'd like to get feedback from client
vendors to see if they would use these, from the server vendors to know
whether they would ever implement them, and of course also from other
people to know if there are some obvious errors or shortcomings. If
there's a better list to move this discussion to, I'm all ears (and
sorry for disturbing the move-related discussion).

I see that my question about "getting standardized" was badly-worded; I
should have really added "eventually" in there. If everything gets done
in a year, I'd be very happy. Sorry for confusion, this is my first time
proposing an extension and I'm clearly not so familiar with the process.

With kind regards,
Jan