49 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
49 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no Sun Dec 31 12:12:35 2006
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:38 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] reporting/detecting expunged messages
|
|
In-Reply-To: <A3CFCE55-56CC-4CC1-ACD8-410341B7157C@iki.fi>
|
|
References: <4505F2FE.8090807@sun.com>
|
|
<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609111648410.5544@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
<450713AB.4090601@sun.com>
|
|
<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121316280.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
<45071A57.5080406@sun.com>
|
|
<9SYO8YZNXU3qj9EYGtuGNg.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
|
|
<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609121437140.2164@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
<2xKZXsAOqJTXDcZB/xUw7g.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
|
|
<Pine.WNT.4.65.0609141841560.1540@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
<LWKbk3lpdVhtHUTm38BDeA.md5@libertango.oryx.com>
|
|
<A3CFCE55-56CC-4CC1-ACD8-410341B7157C@iki.fi>
|
|
Message-ID: <w1EVhSzZvq4UsaZIKe/RlA.md5@[192.168.1.104]>
|
|
|
|
Timo Sirainen writes:
|
|
> On 15.9.2006, at 16.53, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
>> (Btw, I changed our code today to use 4.1.2+loopbreaker. The first
|
|
>> time a client fetches a message which another client has expunged,
|
|
>> but whose expunge has not yet been reported in this session, the
|
|
>> server issues a NO as in 4.1.2, and makes a note of the UID(s). If
|
|
>> any of those UIDs are fetched again before the server can report
|
|
>> the expunge, the server issues a BYE. When it reports expunges, it
|
|
>> clears its UID set. I think that's as good as 4.1.1+period.)
|
|
>
|
|
> Has this been working?
|
|
|
|
We haven't had a single complaint or bug report, and more than two
|
|
months have passed, so it can't be terrible.
|
|
|
|
> I was thinking about changing my current behavior of simply
|
|
> disconnecting the client immediately when this happens (which is
|
|
> annoying when it happens). There's currently no other real
|
|
> alternatives for me than this 4.1.2+loopbreaker or 4.1.3.
|
|
|
|
All rather difficult, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
> Making it admin-configurable is probably a bad idea too.
|
|
|
|
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Arnt
|
|
|