RE: Interesting (gross?) use of CHANNEL

[Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/10/02 at 6:45 PM +0200, Hana Giat wrote:

> > - The document says (in a comment)
> >
> >          You cannot ask for .HEADERS or .MIME data with CHANNEL.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> I think that CHANNEL is mainly a shortcut to the data. This is not 
> reasonable to ask for a 250 bytes shortcut to a 200 bytes response. 
> That's why.

Let's say (for example) that I've got some sort of process that does 
a summary printout of all of the messages I've gotten for the day, 
listing who they're from, the date, the subject, the content-type, 
and some other info. Why shouldn't I be able to CHANNEL the headers 
of a large number of messages to that process to make my report? 
This, of course, assumes that I've got a URL scheme for which this 
makes sense, but I don't see a reason to limit the functionality of 
CHANNEL by not allowing certain kinds of requests. The idea of 
CHANNEL (as I understood it) was to provide a way for an IMAP client 
to push some data from an IMAP server straight to some other kind of 
process without the client having to download the info or the other 
process having to authorize to the IMAP server. I think keeping that 
model as general as we can could provide for more functionality than 
just playing sounds through RTSP.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102