Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?

To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:40:56 +0000
Cc: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx" <ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
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>
Reply-to: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: eM_Client/4.0.14247.0



------ Original Message ------
From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@xxxxxxxx>

Cc: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@xxxxxxxxxxx>;"ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx"<ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx>

Sent: 29/03/2012 11:36:09 p.m.
Subject: Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?

On 03/29/2012 12:28 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:


it probably means though that only UID MOVE is safe.



Depends on the server and on how much time the server maintainer wants
to spend on move.


do we really need a non-UID MOVE?



You can restate that question as "how many clients prefer MSN-based
commands and offer move in their UI" and my answer is "none that I know of".

it's just that looking in my code I have 2 options.1. nest locks in the case of non UID MOVE.

2. reply to non-UID MOVE with BAD.

Since this is still a draft, we could solve that problem right now :)Adrien



Arnt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?
  - From: Arnt Gulbrandsen

References:
- Re: CONDSTORE plus UID EXPUNGE undefined?
  - From: Arnt Gulbrandsen