MBOX-Line: From alexey.melnikov at isode.com  Thu May  7 10:45:54 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RFC2180 expunges on shared mailboxes
In-Reply-To: <5549F002.19423.4AA4F1E4@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
References: <5549F002.19423.4AA4F1E4@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <554BA4D2.4090405@isode.com>

Hi David,

On 06/05/2015 11:42, David Harris wrote:
> Just wondering...
>
> Of the four possible approaches outlined in RFC2180 section 4 for handling
> EXPUNGE commands on shared (multiply-accessed) mailboxes, is there any one
> that has become more broadly acceptable than any other?
>
> For historical reasons, I have always used the approach in 4.1.4 (fail the expunge
> while the mailbox is shared) because in the early days I found that there were
> clients that would become confused by the EXPUNGE responses to their NOOP
> commands and end up subsequently deleting messages they didn't intend to
> delete, which seemed like a much more serious problem than simply failing a
> command.
>
> Unfortunately, with the rise of (often brain-dead) small-device IMAP
> implementations, I'm now getting customers complaining that the 4.1.4 approach
> causes too many problems for them, but I don't want to make a unilateral change if
> the other approaches are just as bad.
I think 4.1.2 and 4.1.1 are my personal favourites. Isode implemented 
4.1.2.
> Any general observations on this?
>
> Cheers!
>
> -- David --
>
> ------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
> Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz
>             Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612
>
> Real newspaper headlines from U.S. papers:
>     COLLEGIANS ARE TURNING TO VEGETABLES
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol


