RE: Interesting (gross?) use of CHANNEL

[Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/17/02 at 11:24 PM -0500, Eric Burger wrote:

> I have to hop in here:  Is CHANNEL sensible if the end-system does 
> not get "transformed" data?

Lyndon actually backed off of his original position; it can certainly 
be transformed, but it shouldn't be changed while it's still on the 
IMAP server. However, there is a perfectly legitimate use of 
untransformed data:

> Why?  If the bytes/packets are not modified, why use anything other 
> than IMAP?  The WHOLE POINT of CHANNEL is to get the data in a "more 
> useful" form, possibly from an "easier" place.

You've said it yourself: You might want to get the data from an 
"easier place". That is, you don't want to have to tell another 
system to go to an IMAP server and go through all of the 
authentication and IMAP overhead that you've already dealt with. You 
want to push the data to another process.

I'd like to write up the mailto: use of CHANNEL. Would you be willing 
to include it in draft-burger-imap-chanuse-00.txt?

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