MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Mon Jan  1 16:22:23 2007
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: <077244CE-5AA8-4524-9A77-27E14C934F84@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>
	<A3CFCE55-56CC-4CC1-ACD8-410341B7157C@iki.fi>
	<w1EVhSzZvq4UsaZIKe/RlA.md5@[192.168.1.104]>
	<077244CE-5AA8-4524-9A77-27E14C934F84@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <nkinvq2thhZkY7LL5u4HSQ.md5@[192.168.1.104]>

Timo Sirainen writes:
> What was the problem with 4.1.3 anyway? Cyrus seems to be using it, so 
> it can't be that bad either.

I don't think 4.1.3 is terrible.

I chose 4.1.2+loopbreaker because 4.1.3 makes msg-att-static less than 
entirely static, which I'd rather avoid if I have a decent alternative. 
I cannot point to any concrete ill effects. Call it cargo-cultish 
adherence to design principles.

(What a pity that 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 don't specify a resp-text-code to let 
smart clients identify the problem exactly.)

Arnt

