65 lines
2.9 KiB
Plaintext
65 lines
2.9 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm Fri Feb 8 12:46:02 2013
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:50 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Clarification on RFC 6851
|
|
In-Reply-To: <1360342514.3230.53.camel@hurina>
|
|
References: <51129513.5080905@aol.com> <1360342514.3230.53.camel@hurina>
|
|
Message-ID: <1360356362.25348.140661188777389.5DDC322F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
|
|
|
|
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 03:55 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
|
|
> On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 12:38 -0500, Stuart Brandt wrote:
|
|
> > I'm hoping someone can clarify the following section of the new MOVE
|
|
> > extension:
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Because a MOVE applies to a set of messages, it might fail partway
|
|
> > through the set. Regardless of whether the command is successful in
|
|
> > moving the entire set, each individual message SHOULD either be moved
|
|
> > or unaffected. The server MUST leave each message in a state where
|
|
> > it is in at least one of the source or target mailboxes (no message
|
|
> > can be lost or orphaned). The server SHOULD NOT leave any message in
|
|
> > both mailboxes (it would be bad for a partial failure to result in a
|
|
> > bunch of duplicate messages). This is true even if the server
|
|
> > returns a tagged NO response to the command.
|
|
> >
|
|
> >
|
|
> > In the case where a MOVE fails partway through the set and leaves some
|
|
> > messages moved and others unaffected, does this imply that servers
|
|
> > SHOULD return a NO in the tagged response, or is OK the more appropriate
|
|
> > tagged response?
|
|
>
|
|
> I was waiting for someone else to give a more exact answer, maybe
|
|
> referring to the RFC text, but here's my take on it. I think the only
|
|
> two reasonable server implementations are:
|
|
>
|
|
> a) Return OK if you moved all of the messages, NO if you didn't move
|
|
> anything. (This is similar to how COPY works.)
|
|
>
|
|
> b) Return OK if you moved all messages that currently exist, i.e. you
|
|
> skipped over messages recently expunged by another session. Return NO if
|
|
> you didn't move anything. (I'm not a fan of this implementation.)
|
|
|
|
Woah. WTF?
|
|
|
|
UID MOVE 1:* Dest
|
|
|
|
I think B is the only way that makes sense here. OK for "I moved every existing message matching the selector" and NO for any partial move where a matching message is left in the source mailbox.
|
|
|
|
If every matching message is not in the source mailbox, then IMHO you're done. If some got expunged before then user intent is that they don't exist any more, so it's "OK" for them to not be in Dest.
|
|
|
|
> I don't think a server should leave the mailbox in a state where some of
|
|
> the messages were copied and some of them weren't, except if something
|
|
> exceptionally bad happens (e.g. server crash). If server happens to do
|
|
> that anyway in normal code, it should return NO.
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
> _______________________________________________
|
|
> Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
--
|
|
Bron Gondwana
|
|
brong@fastmail.fm
|
|
|
|
|