MBOX-Line: From snowjn at aol.com  Tue Jun 15 09:18:55 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: John Snow <snowjn@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] MOVE is a pipeline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1006150905430.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
References: <287202107.4073.1276612036982.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006150905430.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
Message-ID: <4C17A7EF.5000600@aol.com>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Dan Karp wrote:
>> Would it be unreasonable to state that the only untagged EXPUNGE
>> responses from a MOVE command may be those directly resulting from
>> the MOVE?  (UID MOVE, like UID FETCH, would have no such constraints.)
>
> That requires an amendment to RFC 3501 7.4.1.
>
> Having MOVE issue untagged EXPUNGE responses is a problem, since it 
> tempts
> server implementors to do a non-atomic move.  It also makes MOVE chatty,
> and then results in pressure to add MOVE.SILENT or MOVEANDCLOSE.
>
But no more chatty than the EXPUNGE that it would be replacing.
> -- Mark --
>
> http://panda.com/mrc
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20100615/139d155d/attachment.html>
