MBOX-Line: From robsiemb at google.com  Wed Sep  7 09:12:17 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Rob Siemborski <robsiemb@google.com>
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: <5b93232d05090709125cea8c08@mail.google.com>

On 9/7/05, Mark Crispin <mrc@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Offhand I prefer the second, since it clarifies exactly what is
expected, as opposed to leaving it up for interpretation.

-Rob

PS (is anyone else getting lots of bounces from amazon and
internet-drafts@ietf.org in this thread?)

--
Rob Siemborski        |     PGP:0x5CE32FCC    |     robsiemb@google.com
Software Engineer     |                       |            650-623-6925

