Re: UID SEARCH responses

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Pawel Salek wrote:

> Hi,

Hi Pawel,

> I wonder which of the alternatives is a proper ESEARCH response to a  
> following search:
>
> . uid search 28:34
> * SEARCH 38782 38789 40004 40301 40421 40814 41424
> . OK UID SEARCH completed
>
> If I now issue corresponding ESEARCH command:
> . uid search return (all) 28:34
>
> What should the IMAP server answer:
> * ESEARCH (TAG ".") UID ALL 38782,38789,40004,40301,40421,40814,41424
> or
> * ESEARCH (TAG ".") UID ALL 38782:41424
> . OK UID SEARCH completed
> or maybe something else?
>
> The argument for the first form is that it represents a compressed 
> form  of the ordinary search response (OK, not very much compressed 
> this  time), and for the latter, that it can be used as the 
> sequence-set  argument in a subsequent command, as demanded by the RFC.

I agree with Arnt that both resulting UID sets can be used in subsequent 
commands and I can't think of any practical difference at the moment.

Can you show me how you are using the resulting UID set? I would like to 
better understand what you are trying to do and maybe suggest alternatives.