Hi, > 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.
OK, I can accept it. If I break 90% of the clients with a NO response and only 40% with a NIL message (though violating cache semantics), I'll take the latter if you recommend it. But then, please, make it a "valid" response by mentioning it in RFCxyz, so the number 40 is decreasing in the future. > > 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 Both possibilities do not solve the problem if I want an immediate 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? Because I did not yet encounter these issues, though I'm in the last few coding lines? Might be your RFC was so good, might be I'm a darn lucky coder. :-) > 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. Great. What do you suggest - other than ignoring the premise "expunge immediately"? > 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!! :-) Wisdom, your name is Mark. ;-) Christof
