> On a related note, I would not press the point too hard about saying
> certain software is not IMAP4rev1 compatible. As I recall, a few
> things became REQUIRED in RFC 3501 that were not in 2060, which was
> done without bumping the rev # on the protocol, i.e. IMAP4rev2, which
> would have given vendors a clear goal to work towards, without adding
> confusion. If my memory has served me correctly on that note, then a
> vendor could have been IMAP4rev1 compliant as of rfc2060 without
> supporting STARTTLS or disabling LOGIN, and so it is not fair to bait-
> and-switch by calling those two specs the same protocol rev.
Interesting. I was wondering why the server would have to send
STARTTLS in the CAPABILITIES response if it was a required feature of
every server. This seems to answer that question.
If Timo is starting a Wiki, perhaps an "Annotated RFC 3501", in the
spirit of Martin Gardner's THE ANNOTATED ALICE (see
http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall99/alice.htm), would be a good
thing to put up on it. It could annotate the RFC to explain these
things.
Bill