Brad Knowles writes:
> I really don't think that this is a disk storage issue, I think
> this is much more likely to be a wrong-headed idea that this kind
> of thing will be beneficial to the users -- after all, they know
> that they sent the message and that copy is sitting in the outbox,
>
On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:11 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Well, unfortunately Gmail is closed-source and I don't know what the
> full algorithm is. Surely Message-Id is part of it, but evidently
> there are other aspects to it, or the behavior you and Brad
> R. describe wouldn't happen.
In the
Lucio Crusca writes:
> Again, that's not the point and we basically agree gmail is bad,
> but... a standard is some set of commonly accepted rules. Be it
> written down into a RFC or not.
It doesn't need to be in an RFC, but it must be written. "What is
commonly accepted" is simply not a stan
On Thursday 09 August 2012, Lucio Crusca wrote:
> I'd only like to slap gmail in the face if I could, by
> working around their wonderful feature, just for the taste of feeling
> smarter than they pretend to be. All in all, what is hacking about if
> not that?
Please do! Gmail user only because my
Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
> I don't think so. Perhaps "MUA" is the wrong term for a message store
> "in the cloud", but the fact is that Gmail is the final recipient as
> far as the RFCs are concerned. Eg, IMAP servers often implement SIEVE
> recipes and spam filtering, so some messages will be
