54 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
54 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From alexey.melnikov at isode.com Tue Jul 17 10:55:35 2012
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:48 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] QRESYNC and new arrivals which get deleted
|
|
immediately through VANISHED
|
|
In-Reply-To: <50059CCA.6030404@flaska.net>
|
|
References: <4FD221F9.8090601@flaska.net> <50059CCA.6030404@flaska.net>
|
|
Message-ID: <5005A717.7050805@isode.com>
|
|
|
|
Hi Jan,
|
|
|
|
On 17/07/2012 18:11, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
|
|
> On 06/08/12 18:02, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
|
|
>> Finally, my last question is why does QRESYNC require me to issue an
|
|
>> ENABLE QRESYNC at all? I feel like the SELECT ... QRESYNC should be
|
|
>> enough to tell the server that I'm really expecting the VANISHED
|
|
>> responses.
|
|
>
|
|
> I think I have found an answer to this -- if the client doesn't have
|
|
> any cached state for a particular mailbox, it cannot really SELECT
|
|
> QRESYNC that.
|
|
|
|
Right.
|
|
|
|
> If it tried to use a HIGHESTMODSEQ = 1, it would risk an enormous
|
|
> amount of data being transferred in VANISHED EARLIER as the server
|
|
> would have to inform about each and every expunge which has happened
|
|
> in the mailbox since its creation. This is due to the known-uids ABNF
|
|
> item format which doesn't provide any way of sending "nope, I don't
|
|
> know about any UIDs" -- the list can either be missing, or contain at
|
|
> least one item.
|
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
> If I understand everything correctly, ENABLE QRESYNC is therefore
|
|
> still required as long as one wants to receive VANISHED instead of
|
|
> EXPUNGE.
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
> My apologies for assuming that it's useless :).
|
|
>
|
|
> Also is probably means that a QRESYNC-capable clients have to use
|
|
> SELECT ... CONDSTORE when they open a mailbox for the first time.
|
|
|
|
This can be an option.
|
|
|
|
> I'd appreciate if someone could verify these assumptions -- they look
|
|
> plausible to me, but I didn't see any flaw in my previous reasoning,
|
|
> either :).
|
|
|
|
|