[Imap-protocol] Optimistic incremental THREAD=REFERENCES
MRC at Washington.EDU
Fri May 9 15:14:55 PDT 2008
On Sat, 10 May 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> The subject-joining rule magnifies this. Personally I didn't imnplement the
>> subject-joining bit.
> Me neither. That generates more complexity and I'd rather drop the subject
> merging completely (my X-REFERENCES2 threading algorithm does that).
Hopefully this does not cause a flamewar.
I do not approve of the practice of an implementor deciding not to
implement a portion of the specification, even if there seem to be good
reasons to do so.
This leads us to a "do what we say, not what we do" situation when it
comes to non-compliant or broken servers such as Exchange and Gmail.
"I didn't implement header searching. It generates too much complexity."
"I didn't implement the delete-expunge model. It generates too much
complexity. Setting \Deleted just moves to Trash."
"I don't care that I transmit bad syntax in BODYSTRUCTURE. Outlook
doesn't use it, so it doesn't matter."
Now, with that said, I do not object to the creation and publications of a
new threading algorithm that is identical to REFERENCES but omits the
subject consolidation step. I would probably implement it, especially if
it really is identical modulo that step.
Nor would I weep if REFERENCES2 (or whatever) ends up being the one that
everybody uses and REFERENCES passes into obscurity.
All I ask is that if you implement REFERENCES, implement it according to
-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
More information about the Imap-protocol