MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Sat May 26 05:30:02 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Concurrent Mailbox Changes.
In-Reply-To: <46581509.7050201@buni.org>
References: <46581509.7050201@buni.org>
Message-ID: <1180182602.32181.1919.camel@hurina>

On Sat, 2007-05-26 at 12:07 +0100, Michael Barker wrote:
> I have a question regarding behaviour when multiple clients are 
> accessing the same mailbox, especially regarding expunge.

This is discussed in RFC 2180. Summing up your possibilities:

1. Keep the message around until there are no sessions that see it. This
is the preferred behavior.

2. Give some dummy replies for the message. Such as empty flags, and
other fields being NILs or whatever is legal for the field. The downside
to this is that it violates the IMAP protocol if the client had already
asked something about this message.

3. Don't return the FETCH reply for the message at all and return a
tagged NO reply. Doing this makes some clients ask the same message
range over and over again infinitely. This could be avoided also:
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/2006-September/000281.html

4. Disconnect the client anytime you can't handle the request. I used to
do this but it was annoying when it happened.

5. Don't allow EXPUNGE until there's only session. I think this is the
worst of the possibilities.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20070526/fcb9da72/attachment.sig>
