52 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
52 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From alexey.melnikov at isode.com Wed Aug 21 08:08:07 2013
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:51 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Multiple non-waiting UID SEARCH commands
|
|
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDtTBK6EOGtqJNkCQewgc-ZpMMOMq=046j+Umh6H6imvA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
References: <520A622E-1A91-4B04-AD6F-361896D439F5@lasselog.com>
|
|
<5214A27E.8030300@isode.com>
|
|
<CAC4RtVDtTBK6EOGtqJNkCQewgc-ZpMMOMq=046j+Umh6H6imvA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <5214D7D7.8080100@isode.com>
|
|
|
|
On 21/08/2013 15:47, Barry Leiba wrote:
|
|
>>> But this should be fine as long as I can rely on the order of the untagged
|
|
>>> responses. So my questions are:
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> 1. Is my interpretation correct that the above commands are valid according
|
|
>>> to the RFC?
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> 2. Do you know of any servers that don't respond in the order of the
|
|
>>> commands?
|
|
>> Servers should not reorder responses to such commands or they will be in
|
|
>> violation of RFC 3501. So yes, you can rely on the order.
|
|
> Really? Can you show us where in 3501 it's required that untagged
|
|
> responses be in any particular order? I don't think it does.
|
|
I was looking at:
|
|
|
|
5.5. Multiple Commands in Progress
|
|
|
|
The client MAY send another command without waiting for the
|
|
completion result response of a command, subject to ambiguity rules
|
|
(see below) and flow control constraints on the underlying data
|
|
stream. Similarly, a server MAY begin processing another command
|
|
before processing the current command to completion, subject to
|
|
ambiguity rules. However, any command continuation request responses
|
|
and command continuations MUST be negotiated before any subsequent
|
|
command is initiated.
|
|
|
|
The exception is if an ambiguity would result because of a command
|
|
that would affect the results of other commands. Clients MUST NOT
|
|
send multiple commands without waiting if an ambiguity would result.
|
|
If the server detects a possible ambiguity, it MUST execute commands
|
|
to completion in the order given by the client.
|
|
|
|
(The last sentence) But I suppose it doesn't cover cases when there is
|
|
no ambiguity, for example if commands are truly independent.
|
|
|
|
So I suppose I was not quite correct. In reality though, I don't know of
|
|
any server that would execute multiple SEARCHes out of order. I am
|
|
curious to learn if any such server exists.
|
|
|
|
|