Re: Untagged responses

[Pete Maclean]

Alexey,

>> * 5 EXISTS
>> * 3 EXPUNGE
>> * 4 EXISTS
> The last EXISTS response should not be sent in this case, as it doesn't 
change
> the number of messages.

I question this.  There is no argument that the second EXISTS is redundant, 
no argument that without the EXPUNGE it would be invalid.  However, as I 
understand things, it is not actually wrong as shown.

I note that RFC 3501 says, "The EXPUNGE response also decrements the number 
of messages in the mailbox; it is not necessary to send an EXISTS response 
with the new value."  It is not necessary but it is not disallowed.

I ask this question not to be picky but because my IMAP server will, in 
certain circumstances, send redundant EXISTS responses.  And I have never 
seen any problem because of this.  Now I am wondering if this is something 
one should be careful to avoid.

Pete Maclean