MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU  Tue Sep 12 14:10:59 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <45071A57.5080406@sun.com>
References: <4505F2FE.8090807@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609111648410.5544@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<450713AB.4090601@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121316280.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<45071A57.5080406@sun.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121403540.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Most clients are incredibly stupid.  Most of my time spent supporting
> JavaMail is spent finding bugs in servers that don't cause problems
> for any other clients, which of course leads people to believe the
> bug is in JavaMail.  Most clients just treat IMAP as a glorified POP.

All true, especially the last point.

> 4.1.3 is worst for clients that try to do the right thing.  I guess
> 4.1.2 is worst for stupid clients, which sadly is the majority.

Actually, 4.1.2 is troublesome for many clients simply because a NO 
response to a FETCH isn't particularly meaningful or sensible.

4.1.3 has a compliance problem, since it generally creates an 
inconsistency with sizes that were reported earlier.  But it's less 
difficult for many clients to cope with.

> I'd be happy to have both 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 declared as not allowed
> behavior.

Sold!  ;-)

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

