42 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From David.Harris at pmail.gen.nz Wed May 6 03:42:10 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: David Harris <David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:54 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RFC2180 expunges on shared mailboxes
|
|
Message-ID: <5549F002.19423.4AA4F1E4@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|