22 lines
925 B
Plaintext
22 lines
925 B
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no Tue Jun 15 11:52:10 2010
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:44 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] MOVE is a pipeline
|
|
In-Reply-To: <484642146.4458.1276626832297.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
References: <1372616189.4386.1276624386644.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
<1276626345.2916.50.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com>
|
|
<484642146.4458.1276626832297.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <4C17CBDA.6070604@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
|
|
On 06/15/2010 08:33 PM, Dan Karp wrote:
|
|
> I think we can stop there. UID MOVE, like UID FETCH et al, would have
|
|
> no problems with EXPUNGE or VANISHED notifications. It's MOVE (and
|
|
> STORE, etc.) that have the issue addressed in RFC 3501 section 7.4.1.
|
|
|
|
I'd be happy if the document specified only UID MOVE, not MOVE. How
|
|
about the other (would-be) implementers?
|
|
|
|
Arnt
|
|
|