52 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
52 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU Sat May 26 08:09:26 2007
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:39 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Concurrent Mailbox Changes.
|
|
In-Reply-To: <1180182602.32181.1919.camel@hurina>
|
|
References: <46581509.7050201@buni.org>
|
|
<1180182602.32181.1919.camel@hurina>
|
|
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.99.0705260804430.3501@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
|
|
Note that the inventor of IMAP disagrees with the very last sentence of
|
|
Timo's message (see below). He thinks that the preferred order of
|
|
behavior is:
|
|
(1) which everybody thinks is the best
|
|
(5) which at least maintains consistant protocol state
|
|
(4) annoying to users, but doesn't violate protocol state
|
|
(2)/(3) which mislead some clients, breaks others, and
|
|
violates protocol state,
|
|
|
|
As far as the inventor of IMAP is concerned, (1) and (5) are the ONLY
|
|
acceptable choices.
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
|
|
> This is discussed in RFC 2180. Summing up your possibilities:
|
|
>
|
|
> 1. Keep the message around until there are no sessions that see it. This
|
|
> is the preferred behavior.
|
|
>
|
|
> 2. Give some dummy replies for the message. Such as empty flags, and
|
|
> other fields being NILs or whatever is legal for the field. The downside
|
|
> to this is that it violates the IMAP protocol if the client had already
|
|
> asked something about this message.
|
|
>
|
|
> 3. Don't return the FETCH reply for the message at all and return a
|
|
> tagged NO reply. Doing this makes some clients ask the same message
|
|
> range over and over again infinitely. This could be avoided also:
|
|
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/2006-September/000=
|
|
> 281.html
|
|
>
|
|
> 4. Disconnect the client anytime you can't handle the request. I used to
|
|
> do this but it was annoying when it happened.
|
|
>
|
|
> 5. Don't allow EXPUNGE until there's only session. I think this is the
|
|
> worst of the possibilities.
|
|
|
|
-- Mark --
|
|
|
|
http://panda.com/mrc
|
|
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
|
|
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
|
|
|