MBOX-Line: From markrcrispin at panda.com  Wed Mar  4 11:54:49 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <markrcrispin@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:42 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Expunges and copying
In-Reply-To: <1236195778.8159.156.camel@timo-desktop>
References: <1236195778.8159.156.camel@timo-desktop>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0903041151330.8004@hsinghsing.panda.com>

I think that this is allowed, and that a server that does not implement it 
correctly by copying the message is broken.

I have said many times that I do not agree with RFC 2180 sections 4.1.2 
and 4.1.3.  This is an excellent example of why.

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> What do you think, should this be allowed:
>
> Sessions 1 and 2 have selected a mailbox and have an identical view of
> it. Then:
>
> C1: 1 EXPUNGE
> S1: * 1 EXPUNGE
> S1: 1 OK
>
> C2: 2 COPY 1 elsewhere
> S2: * 1 EXPUNGE
> S2: 2 OK
>
> i.e. the second session can copy a message that was already expunged in
> the first session? I guess this isn't all that much different from being
> able to FETCH the message, but somehow it feels to me like allowing COPY
> could be bad..

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

