MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU  Tue Sep 12 14:43:13 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <9SYO8YZNXU3qj9EYGtuGNg.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
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>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121437140.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Bill Shannon writes:
>> I'd be happy to have both 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 declared as not allowed behavior.
> That would leave us with only 4.1.1 and 4.1.4, which make it practically 
> impossible to delete a message. I don't like the security implications of 
> that.

It would require an extremely abusive client to cause that result; one 
that was active but only did FETCH, STORE, and SEARCH commands for an 
extended period of time, thus blocking the untagged EXPUNGE.

To date, this has not been a problem.

If this were to become a problem, a server would be perfectly within its 
rights to set a maximum time that this could go on, and when the time is 
exceeded it issues an untagged BYE.

I would not mind adding text to that effect to the base specification if 
there is concensus that such text is a good idea.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

