🚀 go-pugleaf

On 13 Oct 92 11:34:31 GMT, Alasdair Grant wrote:
> IMAP2bis is pretty
> new and even now they seem to be talking about replacing it with something
> from Carnegie-Mellon.

This is not correct.  The Mail Management Protocol effort at CMU is not a
replacement for IMAP2bis; rather, it is an extension in the areas of mail
management.

Specifically, IMAP2bis adds some rather basic management capabilities (among
others) to IMAP2.  These are not intended to be anything other than basic
management capabilities for simple configurations.  More complex
configurations require a more general management facility.  Putting these in
IMAP2 would make it unnecessarily complex, and it is folly to do so when there
are environments where it is not needed.

This is where the Mail Management Protocol steps in.  It expands on (and
replaces) the basic management facilities in IMAP2bis.  On the other hand, it
does not have access facilities; that's what IMAP2 is for.

This is a planned design, in the name of `separation of concerns,' and it is
also a division of labor between the University of Washington and CMU.

The reason that mail management capabilities are added to IMAP2bis at all is
to provide a springboard for the Mail Management Protocol and to make a
simpler configuration possible for smaller organizations.

-- Mark --