On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Michael Foord <
fuzzyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 25 July 2011 20:38, Maxim Khitrov <
max@mxcrypt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Michael Foord <
fuzzyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 25 July 2011 02:06, Maxim Khitrov <
max@mxcrypt.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello python-ideas,
>> >>
>> >> My most recent project lead me down a path that eventually ended up at
>> >> a new implementation of imaplib based on [RFC-3501]. Although I
>> >> started the project by gradually adding functionality to the existing
>> >> IMAP4 library, some of the features that I required simply could not
>> >> be merged in (without breaking everything). As a result, I wrote my
>> >> own version of the library, which incorporates all existing
>> >> functionality of imaplib and includes many of my own improvements.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is an existing, well tested and widely used, replaced for imaplib
>> > that
>> > I would suggest should be the first for consideration in replacing
>> > imaplib:
>> >
>> >
http://imapclient.freshfoo.com/
>> >
>> > (Sorry.)
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> >
>> > Michael Foord
>>
>> I have it beat at the "Python 3 support is in the works" feature ;)
>> Mine doesn't handle 2.x though.
>>
>> In any case, I would not have been able to use IMAPClient for my
>> project, because the requirements were for no dependencies outside of
>> Python 3.2.
>>
>> Do you know if the developers of IMAPClient considered getting it into
>> the standard library? My goal wasn't just to have another IMAP
>> implementation, but something better available as part of Python.
>>
>
>
> I don't think Menno Smitts would object to adding Python 3 support or adding
> IMAPClient to the standard library. His goal was to create something useful
> to overcome what he saw (and evidently you agree) as irreparable brokenness
> in parts of imaplib.
>
> My point is that if there is an existing widely-used and battle-tested
> alternative, we would be wise to look at that first.