home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- In message <Mailstrom.1.03.32850.26357.treister@forsythe.stanford.edu>,
- Adam Treister <treister@forsythe.stanford.edu> writes:
- >I'm in a situation where we have 5-6K users of a mainframe database
- >oriented mail system, with amazing filing and retrieval capabilities and a
- >tty interface. We should be able to write an IMAP server for the
- >mainframe, and enable access to the archives of messages via a snazzy gui,
- >but will need to make homegrown RPC calls to access the indexes, or
- >extended capabilities.
- >
- >Cant my client test this on connection and say:
- >
- >if (isConnectedToEMS)
- > IMAPSend("A0001 EMBEDDED ( EMS Expire(4, 30 days) )"
- >else
- > IMAPSend("A0001 DELETE 4" )
-
- I'd don't really see the need for a reserved "EMBEDDED" word. Why not
- just try something like: IMAPSend("A0001 EMS Expire(4, 30 days)");
- Then if EMS isn't supported on the server, you'll just get a "BAD"
- response back.
-
- >in such a way that the imapd will pass along the embedded command.
- >
- >Anyway, to come back to the thread, if this is reasonable, couldn't IMSP
- >then send:
- >
- >A0001 EMBEDDED ( IMSP SetACL... )
-
- The current implementation of IMSP just relays the SETACL command
- as defined in the IMSP spec to the IMAP server. If the IMAP server
- doesn't support it (as none do at present), a "BAD" will be returned
- to IMSP, and IMSP then responds with "tag NO ACLs not implementated at
- this site" to it's client.
-
- In general, this sort of relaying commands through one server to
- another should be avoided for efficiency unless there's a really good
- reason to do it (e.g. to implement the "l" access right, IMSP has to
- know about the ACLs).
-
- - Chris
-
-
-