Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Paul Jarc wrote: >> If the client deletes a message it wasn't able to download, then that >> sounds like a buggy client. > > Why?
Um... lossage? If the client shows the user that "there is some message here, but I don't know anything about it", and the user decides to delete it anyway, then of course the client is not at fault. But if the client deletes inaccessible messages *automatically*, it's to blame. >> Right - and where do those rules include the meaing "this message is >> no longer present"? Where do they include the possibility of a data >> item formerly being non-NIL, but later becoming NIL? > > They don't. Which means that you can't do it. I had thought you were saying that the NIL option given in RFC2180, 4.1.3, was a good idea. Apparently I misunderstood, sorry. I was pointing out a possible problem with 4.1.3; we seem to be in agreement on that point. paul
