No support for non-UTF8 parsing about imap-proto

[djc]

So I'm inclined to say that the ergonomics of this are maybe up to users of this crate to handle. Then this crate can focus on providing a correct protocol implementation (using bytes wherever needed), and you can for example have rust-imap offer a nicer API on top of this somehow.

This is kind of predicated on the notion that non-UTF-8 data will really only be a problem for message contents. Have you actually seen this be a problem for header data?

It also relies a little bit on my perception that using the message parsing parts of IMAP should mostly be avoided in favor of handling message parsing in the client application... Some parts of IMAP really seem like a layering violation that way.

[sanmai-NL]

@jonhoo: In my mind, we can just use bytes everywhere and add the UTF-8 API later. I think correctness and completeness of implementation is more important in this early stage than convenience. I'd like us to starting filing issues for missing implementations and bugs, and I'll starting working on them!

[sanmai-NL]

@djc:

1. Yes, headers can be non-UTF-8 as well. See e.g. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5738#section-8.

2. Where shall we draw the boundary between this crate and the mailparse crate for message parsing?

[jonhoo]

Yeah, it's the non-UTF-8 headers that are the issue (in part because not all servers support UTF-8 up-conversion). We could comb through the specs to find which fields are safe to always parse as unicode strings, and which aren't, but it seems better (at least to me) to just have the user choose how to interpret text-like &[u8]s using a trait like the one outlined in the first comment.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with you that if headers were all valid unicode, then this library should just use str everywhere with the exception of message contents. Unfortunately, as @sanmai-NL points out, that doesn't seem to be a realistic assumption :( See also further discussion in mattnenterprise/rust-imap#11.

[djc]

@sanmai-NL RFC 5738 is an extension, so that in my understanding a client should not have to support it.

As for the boundary between this crate and something like mailparse (or my own email-parser crate), I'm not sure how you see that? Especially focusing on the client implementation, according to my understanding an IMAP client is not required to do any email parsing; the server will need to do some of it to be able to return ENVELOPE structures, for example.

[jonhoo]

Interested readers should also see PR #12, and the reason for its closing.