wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095214.22807.mbox:2,S

41 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From snowjn at aol.com Tue Jun 15 12:27:48 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: John Snow <snowjn@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] MOVE is a pipeline
In-Reply-To: <4C17CBDA.6070604@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <1372616189.4386.1276624386644.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1276626345.2916.50.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com> <484642146.4458.1276626832297.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
<4C17CBDA.6070604@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Message-ID: <4C17D434.5080807@aol.com>
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 08:33 PM, Dan Karp wrote:
>> I think we can stop there. UID MOVE, like UID FETCH et al, would have
>> no problems with EXPUNGE or VANISHED notifications. It's MOVE (and
>> STORE, etc.) that have the issue addressed in RFC 3501 section 7.4.1.
>
> I'd be happy if the document specified only UID MOVE, not MOVE. How
> about the other (would-be) implementers?
I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd prefer that we removed the sequence
set from all commands. Use UID for everything.
How does everyone handle a large folder, say 500,000 messages? In order
to process sequence numbers, you have to
know which messages are in the set. The few implementations I've seen
do this by loading the messages into a cache.
This makes some command slow while the cache is loaded. There is also a
limit on how many messages can be loaded
in the cache. If UID were the only way to reference a message, then I
wouldn't need to cache the message list, I
could just work directly from the database.
>
> Arnt
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20100615/49b4be45/attachment.html>