MBOX-Line: From stujenerin at aol.com  Mon Feb 11 15:32:33 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Stuart Brandt <stujenerin@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Clarification on RFC 6851
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyscD572nJXsZOypjLToGP1n6sMLif+68at58rQe4xbfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51129513.5080905@aol.com> <1360342514.3230.53.camel@hurina>
	<1360356362.25348.140661188777389.5DDC322F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<85789225-4185-487E-B971-4783437732EB@iki.fi>
	<CAKHUCzyscD572nJXsZOypjLToGP1n6sMLif+68at58rQe4xbfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51197F91.8050604@aol.com>

Thanks for the good discussion. The scenario we're looking to cover is 
indeed the case Timo hit on - non-recoverable failure of some system 
component while processing an excessively large set of ids.

I'll keep monitoring to see if more clarify comes, but for now we're 
going to proceed with the approach Dave outlined below.

- Stuart

On 2/8/13 4:16 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> My take:
>
> Say NO if no messages were moved. (For whatever reason).
>
> Say OK if some were. (Typically all extant messages in the range).
>
> Rationale: You need to put in response codes in various places; it's not
> clear to me you can put a HIGHESTMODSEQ in a NO response.
>

