MBOX-Line: From barryleiba at computer.org  Wed Aug 21 07:47:56 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:51 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Multiple non-waiting UID SEARCH commands
In-Reply-To: <5214A27E.8030300@isode.com>
References: <520A622E-1A91-4B04-AD6F-361896D439F5@lasselog.com>
	<5214A27E.8030300@isode.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDtTBK6EOGtqJNkCQewgc-ZpMMOMq=046j+Umh6H6imvA@mail.gmail.com>

>> But this should be fine as long as I can rely on the order of the untagged
>> responses. So my questions are:
>>
>> 1. Is my interpretation correct that the above commands are valid according
>> to the RFC?
>>
>> 2. Do you know of any servers that don't respond in the order of the
>> commands?
>
> Servers should not reorder responses to such commands or they will be in
> violation of RFC 3501. So yes, you can rely on the order.

Really?  Can you show us where in 3501 it's required that untagged
responses be in any particular order?  I don't think it does.

Barry

