Making offline support a "client issue" means that every client will
do it differently, and there will be no hooks in the protocol to make
it easy/consistent. Why _wouldn't_ you want to document offline
support?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
(lots of stuff ...)
Ned: YES - YES.
I have felt that way for years.
In response to to Ted's concerns about off-line.
I use SeaMonkey (a Thunderbird spin) for my email. When I setup a mail
account with it, one of the options is for it to cache the email account for
offline usage.
I would think this is mostly a client issue. In a future protocol, when
checking for new message data, pull all of the summary data, and optionally
all of the body parts. Its a client issue. Save the data, or not. If you
pull it all, then the client is free to save it, or not.
--
Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
DouglasRoyer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
714-989-6135
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp