On 25 July 2011 20:38, Maxim Khitrov email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Michael Foord firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 25 July 2011 02:06, Maxim Khitrov email@example.com wrote:
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
I would suggest should be the first for consideration in replacing
All the best,
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.