MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU  Sun Jul 22 21:31:28 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:40 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Unordered FETCH replies
In-Reply-To: <1185164783.25618.157.camel@hurina>
References: <1185164783.25618.157.camel@hurina>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.0.999.0707222128170.956@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Has anyone tried how badly clients would break if FETCH didn't send
> replies ordered by the sequence number? So for example:
>
> 1 fetch 1:* body.peek[]
> * 3 FETCH (BODY.PEEK[] "")
> * 1 FETCH (BODY.PEEK[] "")
> * 2 FETCH (BODY.PEEK[] "")
> 1 OK

No compliant client will break with this.

Nor, for that matter, will a compliant client break if the response for a 
message is broken into multiple FETCH responses.  Under certain 
circumstances, UW imapd will do that.

Proper handling of this is a requirement of IMAP clients.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

