MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Mon Sep 18 09:08:20 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:38 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Avoiding connection-loss
In-Reply-To: <5273.1158594140.711631@invsysm1>
References: <009901c6daf1$1026f580$2d65a8c0@ProImage.local>
	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0609180815470.368@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<5273.1158594140.711631@invsysm1>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0609180855530.368@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Whilst I'm impressed at the devious nature of that workaround,

Yes, "devious" is definitely the word for it.  I might even say "evil".

> 1) You'd have to ensure the EXPUNGE was sent prior to the tagged OK of the 
> IDLE. Easy enough, but:
> 2) You'd also have to increment UIDNEXT etc in order to avoid confusing the 
> client later.

Well, yes and no.

Strictly speaking, you are correct.  However, it is one certain client 
that ever allows an IDLE to go for so long, and we can be confident that 
client will never use UIDNEXT.

IMHO, a client that
  (1) ignores the timeout rules of the IDLE specification
yet
  (2) cares about UIDNEXT
deserves to lose.  ;-)

Actually, a client that just does (1) deserves to lose.  Sadly, however, 
numerous individuals use that certain client.

-- 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.

