On 8.11.2012, at 0.34, Michael M Slusarz wrote: > Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slus...@curecanti.org>: > >> I see your point, but the problem is that is not intuitive when reading the >> RFC. One part of the RFC defines the behavior of VANISHED (EARLIER) as only >> returning changes since the mod-sequence given. And you are correct that >> another part of the RFC says that, essentially, a server is allowed to break >> this required response. >> >> I'm thinking that this is more of an issue with the way the RFC is written. >> I'll move this over to the imap protocol list to get further input. > > Sigh. Never mind. For some reason, I completely ignored (missed?) this part > of the RFC: > > Note: A server that receives a mod-sequence smaller than <minmodseq>, > where <minmodseq> is the value of the smallest expunged mod-sequence > it remembers minus one, MUST behave as if it was requested to report > all expunged messages from the provided UID set parameter. > > So you are right, I was wrong, and the world is good.
I wonder how much would it help if you a) Used the uidset/seqset parameters with SELECT command and optionally b) Dovecot implemented it slightly better than required by RFC: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lemonade/current/msg04771.html
