MBOX-Line: From mrc+imap at panda.com  Thu May 26 13:00:20 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] History question.
In-Reply-To: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com>
References: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1105261223590.973@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Thu, 26 May 2011, John Snow wrote:
> My question is simply, why?  Why is the sequence number needed when the
> command specified a UID, and the UID must be included in the response.
> Seems to me the UID command should have a UID response.

You have already asked this "question" many times.

Clients that use only UIDs and disregard message sequence numbers are
doomed to suck.

IMAP can not prevent the creation of clients that suck; but it will
nonetheless continue to enable the creation of clients that do not suck.

Nor will IMAP repeat the UID SEARCH command's mistake of command modality
in response interpretation.

-- 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.

