MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU  Tue Sep 12 13:27:14 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
In-Reply-To: <450713AB.4090601@sun.com>
References: <4505F2FE.8090807@sun.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609111648410.5544@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<450713AB.4090601@sun.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121316280.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>

Hi Bill -

I appreciate your feelings about 4.1.3 being worse than 4.1.2; but 
empirical evidence over more than a decade shows that 4.1.3 actually 
causes less problems for clients than 4.1.2.

The problem with 4.1.2 is that most clients lack the slightest clue as to 
what to do with a NO response to a FETCH.  Some will loop, repeating the 
FETCH.  Others will crash.

Clients generally don't handle 4.1.3 well either.  But they don't loop or 
crash.

For what it's worth, one of the mail stores supported by UW imapd exhibits 
4.1.3 behavior.  That particular mail store has been deprecated for over a 
decade.  Almost all UW imapd sites use mail stores that do either 4.1.4 or 
(in the case of modern mail stores) 4.1.1.

However, rather than argue the point, let's agree to say that both 4.1.2 
and 4.1.3 are broken behaviors, and neither should be allowed.  Since (in 
my opinion, anyway) 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 are behaviors of old broken mail 
stores, adding an EXPUNGED code won't help since old broken code isn't 
going to get fixed.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

