MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Wed Jun 23 10:20:37 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:45 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Handle failures during STORE command execution
In-Reply-To: <30462.1277311205.980277@puncture>
References: <AANLkTimu9HE_yXxlM9Zy6yNhvmgoOW3Xlj3aDQmCBDDL@mail.gmail.com>
	<30462.1277309118.168996@puncture>
	<AANLkTimuPuKtomDd6kyvXLkofyQyShbDxRDUZLaeWwQ6@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006230919010.266@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<30462.1277311205.980277@puncture>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006231016100.86235@orthanc.ca>

> Albeit my client ignores the OK/NO unless .SILENT is being used.

I think this is wrong. Appending .silent doesn't change the state machine 
semantics of the mailbox. Ignoring the updates doesn't change the fact 
that they happened (or didn't). I would assume that a client that issues a 
foo.silent was doing so knowing it was about to do a full refresh of it's 
view of the mailbox, making the updates from foo superfluous. I certainly 
don't read anything in the spec that indicates appending .silent enables 
transactional commit/rollback behaviour for the command.

--lyndon

