On 06/05/10 23:46 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
funny, how establishing some reasonable common guidelines for handling loss of state in the standard could alleviate these problems to a significant degree. unfortunately, the creator doesn't even acknowledge the problem. oh, well. tough luck, i guess.
loss of tcp connection != loss of state.
In my own review of several IMAP RFCs, it's clear that connection problems have been anticipated and several options have been standardized, such as with uidvalidity and condstor (rfc4551) (among others), which allow a client to quickly resynchronize its state with the server in the face of networking issues. -- Dan White _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list Imap-uw@u.washington.edu http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
