MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Thu Mar 20 04:06:11 2014
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:52 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP SUBMIT Extension, take two
In-Reply-To: <db2cac03-876f-4966-bf1f-1a7f8d9f4536@flaska.net>
References: <5f20eeec-c84b-4395-b89b-dfc243d9c465@flaska.net>
	<66E46BE7-0C45-4EFD-B18F-5A6959AADAC4@gmail.com>
	<db2cac03-876f-4966-bf1f-1a7f8d9f4536@flaska.net>
Message-ID: <219fd97c-e1fd-48e4-b8ae-fcf96537a9bb@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

Is that atomicity really required? And if it is, I don't think the 
three-step submit process gives you atomicity.

I like it in general, but I'd prefer a two- or even one-step process. 
Two-step could be "upload to outbox; submit from outbox". You can do the 
atomicity thing by saying that servers SHOULD lock a message in the outbox 
while it's being submitted, and refuse to resubmit.

Personally I don't think it's worth it. It's better to have simplicity, 
even at the cost of the occasional duplicated message.

Arnt

