30 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
30 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From guenther+imap at sendmail.com Thu May 26 16:34:28 2011
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Philip Guenther <guenther+imap@sendmail.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:46 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] History question.
|
|
In-Reply-To: <4DDEDDD6.1040507@logicprobe.org>
|
|
References: <4DDEA412.6030305@aol.com> <4DDEDDD6.1040507@logicprobe.org>
|
|
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.2.00.1105261628370.892@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Derek Konigsberg wrote:
|
|
> Or my related question (feel free to re-subject if too far OT)... Why
|
|
> do untagged responses in general (e.g. FETCH or EXPUNGE) always use the
|
|
> message sequence number, and not the UID? Seriously its a royal PITA to
|
|
> have to even care about a consistent map of message sequence numbers in
|
|
> the first place, when the protocol supports message UIDs.
|
|
|
|
This question was already answered for the FETCH case. Did you not see
|
|
how it applies to all message-data/metadata responses?
|
|
|
|
(The teaching of history is completely overrated. Why would anyone want
|
|
to study how things came to be the way they are and the engineering
|
|
process that did so when they can just complain that things aren't how
|
|
they wish they were. We obviously understand everything better now and
|
|
*this time* we'll get it perfectly right, even without reflection on the
|
|
past. We should delete the imap-protocol mail archives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Guenther
|
|
|