On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 11:17 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote: > I too would have expected a new IMAP extension that would allow the IMAP > client to ask the IMAP server to post the message. I don't know why this > route was not taken.
Lemonade group discussed this in their "push vs pull" arguments. I didn't follow Lemonade back then, so I can't give any reasons why pull was chosen. This was anyway a conscious design decision made by the majority of people in the group. A quick google search found a draft for the push method: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gellens-lemonade-push-00 My personal opinion is that: 1) BURL seems somewhat similar to how email clients already behave. They already save message to IMAP server and send it to SMTP server. BURL keeps this behavior, it just replaces DATA command with BURL (plus of course requires the client to first register the IMAP URL). 2) Embedding SMTP commands among IMAP traffic seems a bit ugly too. For just MAIL FROM and RCPT TO it's probably not too horrible, but what about (future) SMTP extensions, should they be somehow also supported? Anyway, I don't think there is much choice anymore. Either implement BURL that has at least a chance of becoming popular (and with Apple now implementing it, especially if their future clients will support it, there is some chance) or try to implement your own non-standard way that will work only in some specific random installations.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
