42 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU Fri Nov 16 13:22:02 2007
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:40 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] FETCH/STORE on out-of-range sequence number
|
|
In-Reply-To: <1195240890.6039.172.camel@hurina>
|
|
References: <2123708120.202451195235056495.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
<6199.1195236170.977095@invsysm1>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711161051240.7038@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
<1195240890.6039.172.camel@hurina>
|
|
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711161315230.5744@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Timo Sirainen wrote:
|
|
>> I have NEVER seen any client confusion due to 4.1.4.
|
|
> Even if clients can handle it, humans probably can't. I often have my
|
|
> INBOX opened from two clients, and it would be really annoying if I had
|
|
> to shut down the other one of them just to get messages expunged.
|
|
|
|
I can say that humans have handled 4.1.4 behavior for years. However, I
|
|
agree that they find it annoying.
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, it is possible to upgrade 4.1.4 behavior to 4.1.1 behavior
|
|
fairly easily. Have a flag in the mail store that declares the messages
|
|
to be "invisible" if you can not actually remove them, and send your
|
|
untagged EXPUNGEs to the client; then as other IMAP sessions go
|
|
EXPUNGE-capable, they send an untagged EXPUNGE for each message that went
|
|
invisible. When the last concurrent session sends the untagged EXPUNGE,
|
|
you can then remove the invisible message.
|
|
|
|
My server does this. Actually, it takes the cheap way out; it only
|
|
removes messages when it has exclusive access. Otherwise it marks
|
|
messages as invisible. It's been on my list to have a message share count
|
|
so I can remove messages even when there is shared access, but I haven't
|
|
gotten around to it yet.
|
|
|
|
-- Mark --
|
|
|
|
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
|
|
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
|
|
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
|
|
|