Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:06:23 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > By the way, even a UID only client could avoid the problem if it paid >> > attention to the EXISTS value. >> No, the mailbox can become empty before the client received the EXISTS >> value. Returning BAD in this case seems unwarranted. > > That is impossible, by definition in IMAP. > > If the fact that a message exists has been announced by EXISTS, that fact can > not be revoked except via an untagged EXPUNGE. The client always knows, at > all times, how many messages there are.
I meant that the mailbox can become empty during the time it takes to send the EXISTS to the client, and during that time window the client can issue a command with the * message number. Not a likely scenario, but telling the client it was violating the protocol does not seem like a good response.
