MBOX-Line: From alexey.melnikov at isode.com  Wed Mar 25 12:30:50 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Gmail flags issue, timing-sensitive
In-Reply-To: <20150325132119.Horde.H9br3-icKPf32c5xmMNhdfM@bigworm.curecanti.org>
References: <CAN7dqjCYRb2sbOZS49hiqgrSsfKFTzyT-b5fKHm0U4mBGvDRzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABa8R6t01i4CMumftDbTdY_xC7WYWLCmh7__Qg+zrsw8dZxHwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN7dqjAxtu=k65vF-gshYYiEdMVeJ_j_ZruB2RLQRHTxouRckA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN7dqjBcK_UZ1uYcT-G=a7N7W=g_JoAXf=kHSL6sz9EmMtc-9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150325132119.Horde.H9br3-icKPf32c5xmMNhdfM@bigworm.curecanti.org>
Message-ID: <55130CEA.7050608@isode.com>

Hi Michael,

On 25/03/2015 19:21, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
> Quoting Kostya Vasilyev <kmansoft@gmail.com>:
>
>> New state reported without \Answered first (wrong), then with it 
>> (right),
>> and the MODSEQ is the same (which is also wrong).
>>
>> 21:54:31.077 [IMAP.5800] Sending: kman25 UID STORE 196290 +FLAGS 
>> (\Flagged)
>> 21:54:31.672  [IMAP_RAW.5800] Data is <167>:
>> 21:54:31.672  * 20927 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Seen) MODSEQ (20736711) 
>> UID
>> 196290)
>> 21:54:31.672 * 20927 FETCH (UID 196290 MODSEQ (20736711) FLAGS 
>> (\Answered
>> \Flagged \Seen))
>> 21:54:31.672  kman25 OK Success
> This is inefficient.  But it is perfectly acceptable IMAP.
I think this is not correct, because the two responses should use 2 
different MODSEQs, if they return different set of flags.


