wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095135.23059.mbox:2,S

41 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From robsiemb at google.com Wed Sep 7 08:03:09 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Rob Siemborski <robsiemb@google.com>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox
In-Reply-To: <5b93232d050907075812659c02@mail.google.com>
References: <UsPqTMxta5Q38J/4ek2JBA.md5@bluegrass.trish.de>
<5b93232d050907075812659c02@mail.google.com>
Message-ID: <5b93232d05090708031a898592@mail.google.com>
On 9/7/05, Rob Siemborski <robsiemb@google.com> wrote:
> On 9/7/05, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
> > Opinions?
> >
> > My (strong) preference is that SELECT of a valid mailbox should start a
> > new session, no matter whether it's the same mailbox as the previous
> > one.
>
> This strikes me as the most consistent behavior. It is also what Cyrus does.
>
> The second paragraph you quote could probably be more clearly stated
> with "SELECT or EXAMINE of any valid mailbox" or similar, which is how
> I find myself reading "another" in this case.
Actually, this isn't quite right either, because of the possibility of
failure of a SELECT command, which implies to me the entire paragraph
is bogus (since the original text didn't address this case).
Perhaps "a SELECT or EXAMINE command is issued (regardless of if it
succeeds or fails)" is closer. Really, the important part of the
second paragraph is "until the time that selection ends" which is
immediately upon the next SELECT command (which deselects the mailbox
first)
-Rob
--
Rob Siemborski | PGP:0x5CE32FCC | robsiemb@google.com
Software Engineer | | 650-623-6925