On 30/05/2012 18:20, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Timo,
(Changing thread since we are now into a technical issue rather than
charter)
--On May 30, 2012 7:59:19 PM +0300 Timo Sirainen <[email protected]> wrote:
So Arnt tells me.
If I can implement it this way without violating the spec:
1. Verify that ACLs allow expunge, fail if not
2. Do atomic UID COPY without enforcing quota limits
3. Expunge the messages
[4. If expunge for some strange reason fails now, there are probably
duplicates now. I'm not sure if I want to bother fixing that situation.
It should "never" happen anyway.]
then I could add it to Dovecot pretty much immediately.
So if the expunge does fail, how are you going to report that to the
client? Arnt's current spec does not show any * N EXPUNGE responses
coming back, so I am assuming that the client is supposed to
implicitly assume the expunges took place, which would cause a problem
if they did not take place. But that seems wrong to me - shouldn't UID
MOVE cause * N EXPUNGE to be sent for each message that was actually
moved?
Yes, I think lack of EXPUNGE responses is an error for reasons stated by
Timo.
_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
