On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Christof Drescher wrote:
> So I could also live with these ghost messages. What about stating
> something like "ghost messages (as defined in RFC2180) are a valid
> response, which should force clients to NOOP to catchup".
Whether or not that strategy will get you into trouble is questionable
(there are believable reports that it will not).
Returning NO got other server implementors into trouble on multiple
occasions.
> I just want clarification for the issue, be it a "NO [NOOPFIRST] Fetch
> response" or "valid NIL message response".
You got a clarification!
You will not tempt fate if you either:
. forbid shared expunge
. keep the message text around until the last client that has the mailbox
open is notified about the expunge
The other strategies tempt fate.
Why subject yourself to the risk, when there is such a clear answer that
does not tempt fate? Why spend time on this one little issue, when there
are so many other issues in writing an IMAP server that are much harder
and have much less clearly-defined outcomes?
Don't you see that you are making a bigger issue than it actually is? A
client will see an externally-induced expunge sooner or later. With most
well-written clients, it tends to be sooner (3 minutes or less). The real
issue is whether or not the user gets an unpleasant error message.
For better or worse, the chance of getting [NOOPFIRST] widely implemented
is about the same as Schroeder declaring that Bush was right about Iraq,
and that he (Schroeder) will switch parties from SPD to CDU. It could
happen; people of a certain belief system may think that it should happen;
but it's not very likely!! :-)
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
