81 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
81 lines
2.8 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com Fri May 8 00:03:35 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:54 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RFC2180 expunges on shared mailboxes
|
|
In-Reply-To: <554BA4D2.4090405@isode.com>
|
|
References: <5549F002.19423.4AA4F1E4@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
|
|
<554BA4D2.4090405@isode.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <CABa8R6sq7Gf1wTGN=x=k=a5np4ih9=XGpaM_0LbgE5jOrP_7BA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Gmail implements a combo of 4.1.1/4.1.2 in that expunge is typically only
|
|
removing the label from a message, so under most circumstances, you'll get
|
|
4.1.1 behavior. In cases where the expunge actually results in the message
|
|
being completely deleted, (expunge from trash, for example), then we do the
|
|
4.1.2 behavior.
|
|
|
|
Brandon
|
|
|
|
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|
wrote:
|
|
|
|
> Hi David,
|
|
>
|
|
> On 06/05/2015 11:42, David Harris wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
>> Just wondering...
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Of the four possible approaches outlined in RFC2180 section 4 for handling
|
|
>> EXPUNGE commands on shared (multiply-accessed) mailboxes, is there any one
|
|
>> that has become more broadly acceptable than any other?
|
|
>>
|
|
>> For historical reasons, I have always used the approach in 4.1.4 (fail
|
|
>> the expunge
|
|
>> while the mailbox is shared) because in the early days I found that there
|
|
>> were
|
|
>> clients that would become confused by the EXPUNGE responses to their NOOP
|
|
>> commands and end up subsequently deleting messages they didn't intend to
|
|
>> delete, which seemed like a much more serious problem than simply failing
|
|
>> a
|
|
>> command.
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Unfortunately, with the rise of (often brain-dead) small-device IMAP
|
|
>> implementations, I'm now getting customers complaining that the 4.1.4
|
|
>> approach
|
|
>> causes too many problems for them, but I don't want to make a unilateral
|
|
>> change if
|
|
>> the other approaches are just as bad.
|
|
>>
|
|
> I think 4.1.2 and 4.1.1 are my personal favourites. Isode implemented
|
|
> 4.1.2.
|
|
>
|
|
> Any general observations on this?
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Cheers!
|
|
>>
|
|
>> -- David --
|
|
>>
|
|
>> ------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
|
|
>> Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz
|
|
>> Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Real newspaper headlines from U.S. papers:
|
|
>> COLLEGIANS ARE TURNING TO VEGETABLES
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>> _______________________________________________
|
|
>> Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
>> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
>> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
>>
|
|
>
|
|
> _______________________________________________
|
|
> Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
>
|
|
-------------- next part --------------
|
|
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
|
|
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20150508/82a15795/attachment.html>
|