80 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
80 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From davidr at imap.cc Thu Nov 6 09:10:29 2008
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: David Rauschenbach <davidr@imap.cc>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:42 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Untagged Status Notifications Async or Not?
|
|
References: <49132293.10733.4B89FB7@mail.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <001c01c94032$923af690$0401a8c0@SYNCHRONICA.COM>
|
|
|
|
You could send an unsolicited response whenever you want, but if the client
|
|
is not in a blocking call in order to receive what you send as soon as you
|
|
send it, you might block for a very long time, in your send attempt.
|
|
|
|
Most clients are coded to read a response only after sending a request. So,
|
|
whatever you try and send from the server would not go anywhere. Therefore,
|
|
you're better off queueing your events, and flushing the queue along with
|
|
the response to the next command.
|
|
|
|
David
|
|
----- Original Message -----
|
|
From: "Sabahattin Gucukoglu" <mail@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
|
|
To: <imap-protocol@u.washington.edu>
|
|
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:00 AM
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Untagged Status Notifications Async or Not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
|
> Hash: SHA1
|
|
>
|
|
> Hi,
|
|
>
|
|
> I'm afraid I'm having problems with RFC 3501. The problem is that, while
|
|
> it clearly indicates that all clients absolutely MUST interpret untagged
|
|
> responses sent at any time, it seems (in a rather roundabout fashion) to
|
|
> imply that it is somehow proper for SELECTed mailboxes only ever to inform
|
|
> clients when responding to client commands, like NOOP. There's never a
|
|
> mention of why this is so, nor any permission explicitly given (as it
|
|
> seems to me) to do the right thing and just blast untagged notifications
|
|
> at the client as soon as we have them.
|
|
>
|
|
> Apart from when dealing with client bugs, I'd like to see an IMAP server I
|
|
> use push notifications at once, to have clients listen and act on them
|
|
> accordingly without requiring a minimum polling period during which they
|
|
> assume complete silence for fear of soliciting any response, and all
|
|
> without needing IDLE which we will use when we clearly need to (I.E.,
|
|
> we've quite finished interfacing with the user and are now doing nothing
|
|
> but wait for new mail).
|
|
>
|
|
> Can I be certain that it is absolutely okay to send untagged responses
|
|
> whenever we feel like it? I'd love to see this written about somewhere in
|
|
> a net note so the world will do the right thing. As things are, a few
|
|
> clients seem happy to reproduce the wait-NOOP-read-wait-NOOP cycle, which
|
|
> is totally uncool.
|
|
>
|
|
> Cheers,
|
|
> Sabahattin
|
|
>
|
|
> - --
|
|
> Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail<at>sabahattin<dash>gucukoglu<dot>com>
|
|
> Address harvesters, snag this: feedme@yamta.org
|
|
> Phone: +44 20 88008915
|
|
> Mobile: +44 7986 053399
|
|
> http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
> Version: PGP 8
|
|
> Comment: QDPGP - http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
|
|
>
|
|
> iQA/AwUBSRMilCNEOmEWtR2TEQKPTACgnYffKjrq8TvFQHJ8KB46eaKhc90AoOB6
|
|
> 7fpbqRwLrEO+4mIooOwoqJiZ
|
|
> =5Gr1
|
|
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
> _______________________________________________
|
|
> Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|