Lisa Dusseault wrote:
This is what I'd vote for as an individual. Chandler looked at exactly this
kind of information as a way of figuring out for the user how to configure
a MUA. Having this kind of possibility mentioned in the draft but not
specified is worthless. Having it specified but not required is much
better. Having it specified and required may be too much burden on servers.
I have a draft for IMAP (sent separately) using Cyrus' IMAP annotations
proposal, but the latter is only experimental. Would that be an issue,
or is that enough to provide a workable example? Or should I use
CAPABILITY instead? I'm also wondering if I'd get resistance from
imapext for doing it that way.
Sounds like maybe this proposal and the IMAP one (and maybe a POP3 one)
should all go in parallel.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to