MBOX-Line: From David.Harris at pmail.gen.nz  Wed May  6 03:42:10 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: David Harris <David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RFC2180 expunges on shared mailboxes
Message-ID: <5549F002.19423.4AA4F1E4@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>

Just wondering...

Of the four possible approaches outlined in RFC2180 section 4 for handling 
EXPUNGE commands on shared (multiply-accessed) mailboxes, is there any one 
that has become more broadly acceptable than any other?

For historical reasons, I have always used the approach in 4.1.4 (fail the expunge 
while the mailbox is shared) because in the early days I found that there were 
clients that would become confused by the EXPUNGE responses to their NOOP 
commands and end up subsequently deleting messages they didn't intend to 
delete, which seemed like a much more serious problem than simply failing a 
command.

Unfortunately, with the rise of (often brain-dead) small-device IMAP 
implementations, I'm now getting customers complaining that the 4.1.4 approach 
causes too many problems for them, but I don't want to make a unilateral change if 
the other approaches are just as bad.

Any general observations on this?

Cheers!

-- David --

------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz
           Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612

Real newspaper headlines from U.S. papers:
   COLLEGIANS ARE TURNING TO VEGETABLES




