MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Mon Mar 12 02:53:43 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:38 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] mailbox hierarchy conventions? 
In-Reply-To: <DAA27A54-569E-4175-917A-9C958932B9FF@iki.fi>
References: <07Mar11.154843pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<alpine.OSX.0.83.0703111704450.20984@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<07Mar11.162448pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<alpine.OSX.0.83.0703111726370.20984@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<1173661726.17598.331.camel@hurina>
	<07Mar11.195659pst."57996"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<DAA27A54-569E-4175-917A-9C958932B9FF@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <19934.1173693223.973130@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Mon Mar 12 06:14:24 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 12.3.2007, at 5.56, Bill Janssen wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, that's a nice list.
>> 
>>> One workaround that there used to be was that several clients 
>>> (kmail,
>>> Thunderbird at least) didn't like if UID field wasn't the first  
>>> field in
>>> FETCH replies. After a while I gave up and just put it back to 
>>> begin
>>> first.
>> 
>> Didn't like it, how?  I'm sending it last (on a UID FETCH if it's 
>> not
>> explicitly specified), and Thunderbird seems happy.  I send the  
>> specified
>> items on a FETCH in the order they were requested.
> 
> Hmm. It probably was enough if the UID was in the "* FETCH" line. 
> At  least if the message body was before UID it didn't like that. 
> And by  not liking I mean it somehow mixed it up with previous 
> message,  causing at least the message's size field to be wrong.
> 
> Looks like I'm now sending the items also in the requested order,  
> except message headers and body come last always.

I've understood the following to be legal, but I suspect it'd cause 
much breakage:

C: tag UID FETCH u BODY[1]
S: * s FETCH BODY [1] {n}
S: ...
S: * s FETCH UID u
S: tag OK

Certainly in my client's case I'm not sure how well the code-path 
that copes with the first will work. It'd handle it if it happened to 
know which UID message number s had already, but otherwise I'm really 
not sure. Mind you, I'm also not sure that my client could ever get a 
body part without knowing the UID.

I'm pretty sure that sending any implicit UID first, then everything 
else all on the same FETCH response, is not going to break anyone.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

