MBOX-Line: From dkonigsberg at logicprobe.org  Thu May 26 16:10:14 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Derek Konigsberg <dkonigsberg@logicprobe.org>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] History question.
In-Reply-To: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com>
References: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4DDEDDD6.1040507@logicprobe.org>

On 5/26/2011 3:03 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
> Section 6.4.8 the UID command says:
>
>        The number after the "*" in an untagged FETCH response is always a
>        message sequence number, not a unique identifier, even for a UID
>        command response.  However, server implementations MUST implicitly
>        include the UID message data item as part of any FETCH response
>        caused by a UID command, regardless of whether a UID was specified
>        as a message data item to the FETCH.
>
> My question is simply, why?  Why is the sequence number needed when 
> the command
> specified a UID, and the UID must be included in the response.  Seems 
> to me the UID
> command should have a UID response.

Or my related question (feel free to re-subject if too far OT)...  Why do untagged responses in general (e.g. FETCH or EXPUNGE) always use the message sequence number, and not the UID?  Seriously its a royal PITA to have to even care about a consistent map of message sequence numbers in the first place, when the protocol supports message UIDs.

-- 
----------------------------
  Derek Konigsberg
  dkonigsberg@logicprobe.org
----------------------------


