Timo Sirainen <tss(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi> wrote:
Gmail is unlikely to implement that, since that would require changing
their current default behavior and breaking users' configuration. So
it's not going to get wide adoption.
Always a problem with protocol upgrades :-) I wonder if it makes sense to
add a parameter to the EHLO keyword giving the default, e.g. GMail would
say:
250-LOCALCOPY YES
and the client could state its preference which overrides the default:
MAIL FROM:<...> LOCALCOPY=YES
MAIL FROM:<...> LOCALCOPY=NO
I wonder how to handle per-user localcopy settings. I think you would need
a command to query in that case. e.g. an EHLO reply like
250-LOCALCOPY USER
The LOCALCOPY command could retrieve both the option's state and the
disposition of the last MAIL transaction, if there was one.
That would also allow more complexity like:
250-LOCALCOPY 2.0.0 Ok
250-LOCALCOPY 5.2.2 You are over quota
250-LOCALCOPY 2.0.1 IMAP 12345678 123 Saved mail with IMAP UIDVALIDITY
12345678 and UID 123 to your \Sent mailbox
Ugh I don't like the mixture of 250 5.2.2 :-) There is the potential to
fix a long-standing nastiness, which Lemonade missed: a good
implementation could ensure that message submission and saving a local
copy either both fail or both succeed.
Speaking of Lemonade, I wonder about combining with BURL ...
MAIL FROM:<...> LOCALCOPY=MOVE ?
Getting into dangerous over-engineering territory.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, rain at first. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor at first.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp