Lisa, do you have a preference (as an individual contributor) in the
question of using CAPABILITY vs. annotations?
Tony
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
<mailto:tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>> wrote:
IMAP/POP servers are what the MUA is
talking with; they *are* the representative for the MDA; and the MUA is
*already* talking with the IMAP/POP servers, so could easily ask for a
bit more information.
We can write it up and see if it flies. Here's how it could look:
IMAP
x CAPABILITY
x CAPABILITY Authentication-Results=isp.example.net
<http://isp.example.net>
x OK CAPABILITY completed
POP3
CAPA
Authentication-Results=isp.example.net <http://isp.example.net>
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.
Lisa
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html