MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Wed Sep  7 13:20:06 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.64.0509071224070.3496@Shimo-Tomobiki.panda.com>
References: <UsPqTMxta5Q38J/4ek2JBA.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>
	<5b93232d050907075812659c02@mail.google.com>
	<5b93232d05090708031a898592@mail.google.com>
	<Pine.OSX.4.63.0509070901430.28350@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<20596.1126120360.592254@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
	<Pine.WNT.4.64.0509071224070.3496@Shimo-Tomobiki.panda.com>
Message-ID: <20596.1126124406.082090@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Wed Sep  7 06:31:28 2005, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Personally I like it. It means that where I need to perform an 
>> UNSELECT, but the server doesn't support that, I can issue a known 
>> bogus SELECT. (In fact, I do: SELECT "&#-&#/#")
> 
> The entire reason why UNSELECT was defined is that this is not a 
> reliable mechanism.

Which is why my client uses UNSELECT on those rare occasions wherever 
possible, of course. If that mailbox actually exists, however, I'd be 
reasonably surprised, but it's not impossible.

Dave.

