[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UID SEARCH responses

To: ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: UID SEARCH responses
From: Martin Konold <martin.konold@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 05:32:56 +0200
In-reply-to: <105201c7dd4f$4e206810$ea613830$%coates@xxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: erfrakon
References: <1186951077l.3538l.2l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.OSX.0.999.0708121340010.14725@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <105201c7dd4f$4e206810$ea613830$%coates@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.7

Am Montag 13 August 2007 schrieben Sie:

Hi Pieter,

> Personally I think that having a search result that does not stand alone
> (as in sends a range when some messages in the range do not exist) is
> bogus.

I am wondering if this can be kept at all times. Basically I consider IMAP to 
be incoherent anyway. 

In other words: When returning an explicit list of UIDs like 1,3,4 instead of 
1:4 not much is gained simply because at _any_ time it is allowed within the 
protocol that any message might have got deleted/expunged in the meantime.

Regards,
-- martin konold

-- 
e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Sitz: Adolfstraße 23 Stuttgart - Partnerschaftsregister Stuttgart PR 126
http://www.erfrakon.com/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Pawel Salek

References:
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Pawel Salek
- Re: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Mark Crispin
- RE: UID SEARCH responses
  - From: Peter Coates

Prev by Date: RE: UID SEARCH responses
Next by Date: Re: UID SEARCH responses
Previous by thread: RE: UID SEARCH responses
Next by thread: Re: UID SEARCH responses
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread