MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Sun Dec 31 12:12:58 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:38 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <7649676B-5A1C-42A7-88D2-CC86B01F81CB@iki.fi>
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>
	<9SYO8YZNXU3qj9EYGtuGNg.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121437140.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<2xKZXsAOqJTXDcZB/xUw7g.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609141841560.1540@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<LWKbk3lpdVhtHUTm38BDeA.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
	<7649676B-5A1C-42A7-88D2-CC86B01F81CB@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <yVQlzdIVdtmKCYKPZuHWCQ.md5@[192.168.1.104]>

Timo Sirainen writes:
> On 15.9.2006, at 16.53, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>>>  IMO,  it depends on the precise text. Requiring that all clients
>>>>  offer the server an opportunity to send EXPUNGE every so often
>>>>  can't be all that bad, but how often? "EXPUNGE may not take
>>>>  effect completely until half an hour after the tagged OK" sounds
>>>>  overly long to me. "Clients must give the server the opportunity
>>>>  to send EXPUNGE at two-minute intervals or more often" sounds
>>>>  much too short. Ten minutes sounds both too short and too long.
>>>>  All partly subjective of course.
>>>
>>>  In my opinion, the minimum period should be between 5 and 30
>>>  minutes.  NAT has pretty much made it non-viable to go idle for
>>>  more than 5 minutes.
>>
>>  Then five minutes.
>
> 5 minutes sounds pretty short to me. Have you tried adding such a 
> check yet and see what it does to clients? I was thinking something 
> like 15-30 minutes.

I think I'll follow rather than lead on this one. Now that I have the 
loopbreaker it's not much of a problem from my viewpoint.

Arnt

