MBOX-Line: From guenther+imap at sendmail.com  Thu May 26 16:34:28 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Philip Guenther <guenther+imap@sendmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] History question.
In-Reply-To: <4DDEDDD6.1040507@logicprobe.org>
References: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com> <4DDEDDD6.1040507@logicprobe.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.2.00.1105261628370.892@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>

On Thu, 26 May 2011, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
> Or my related question (feel free to re-subject if too far OT)...  Why 
> do untagged responses in general (e.g. FETCH or EXPUNGE) always use the 
> message sequence number, and not the UID?  Seriously its a royal PITA to 
> have to even care about a consistent map of message sequence numbers in 
> the first place, when the protocol supports message UIDs.

This question was already answered for the FETCH case.  Did you not see 
how it applies to all message-data/metadata responses?

(The teaching of history is completely overrated.  Why would anyone want 
to study how things came to be the way they are and the engineering 
process that did so when they can just complain that things aren't how 
they wish they were.  We obviously understand everything better now and 
*this time* we'll get it perfectly right, even without reflection on the 
past.  We should delete the imap-protocol mail archives.


Philip Guenther

