MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Wed Sep  7 10:12:59 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.63.0509070829570.28350@pangtzu.panda.com>
References: <UsPqTMxta5Q38J/4ek2JBA.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>
	<5b93232d050907075812659c02@mail.google.com>
	<Pine.OSX.4.63.0509070829570.28350@pangtzu.panda.com>
Message-ID: <S4NOs/vHy3ssJ75LreScSg.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>

Mark Crispin writes:
> My preference would be either to:
>  . leave the current wording as-is
> or
>  . change it to an explicit statement that server behavior (and subsequent
>    state of \Recent flags) with extraneous SELECT is undefined and
>    implementation dependent.
> That way, existing servers are not declared broken, and clients are 
> put on notice not to use this as a hack to clear \Recent flags.

Example:

At this time, the first message in a mailbox has UID 1000 and the second 
has UID 2000. Two clients are connected to the server.

1. Client 1 issues EXAMINE for the mailbox.
2. Client 2 deletes the message with MSN 1 and UID 1000, and issues EXPUNGE.
3. Client 1 upgrades to SELECT the mailbox.
4. Client 1 issues "fetch 1 uid".

Is the response 1000 or 2000? I'd rather define 2000 to be the one true 
response.

Arnt

