Re:Postel’s Principle is a Bad Idea
by mattmanser on Monday February 04, 2013 @04:44AM
(#5163293)
Yes, there were major changes between the way IMAP worked in Outlook 2003 & Outlook 2007 too, I think they re-wrote their IMAP code as it behaved completely differently. Admittedly it was much better, but it broke our custom IMAP server which I ended up fixing. I can't remember exactly why now, but Outlook 2003's implementation was bizarre, as if they'd not read the RFC.
That reminds me of the bizarre big because they used a short uint to store the message UID. Maybe it wasn't a short but it definitely wasn't 32-bit as per the spec, there was some magic number that if you went over 'boom'. As an end user it appeared that some messages just disappeared.
Re:Postel’s Principle is a Bad Idea
by danielweber on Monday February 04, 2013 @09:58AM
(#5164352)
POP3 is no picnic, either. Outlook seems to want care about the last-used UIDL.
And, to make things more confusing, the RFC is a little vague about the re-use of UIDLs.
* A classic would be IE's abuse of TCP RST: http://www.stroppykitten.com/cms/index.php?option=com_conten...
* A decent chunk of email server code (SMTP & IMAP implementations in particular) is there to handle erroneous client behaviours. The worst cases are those where the workaround leads to misbehaviours (or less optimal behaviours) for conforming clients. If I remember correctly, the popular Outlook series of clients is a notorious source of such warts. A number of SMTP sender libraries will skip over significant parts of the protocol state machine; configuring a mail server to handle that degenerate case can weaken its anti-spam provisions.