MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Wed Sep  7 10:37:34 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox
In-Reply-To: <S4NOs/vHy3ssJ75LreScSg.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>
References: <UsPqTMxta5Q38J/4ek2JBA.md5@bluegrass.trish.de> 
	<5b93232d050907075812659c02@mail.google.com>
	<Pine.OSX.4.63.0509070829570.28350@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<S4NOs/vHy3ssJ75LreScSg.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.63.0509071015052.28350@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> 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.

Sorry.  The response is ambiguous.

Yes, any good server implementation would return 2000.  A really good 
server would do so without the SELECT; a NOOP sufficies from the 
protocol's perspective to get an untagged EXPUNGE.

Nevertheless, nothing in IMAP REQUIRES (as opposed to STRONGLY ENCOURAGES) 
that sort of inter-session locking and synchronization semantics from the 
underlying mail store.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

