On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 23:43, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Michael Wener wrote: > >> It's not concensus; it's the specification. > > Where? > ... > This is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind when considering any > protocol: when it seems that a protocol has senseless rules and numerous > design problems, perhaps you are looking at it wrong. Perhaps you have > misunderstood the design.
I've never considered the protocol to have design problems or senseless rules. > > If they allow you to refer to the same message between sessions how is > > this not state being carried over from one session to another? > > The fact that a message with UID 1232 exists in mailbox FOO in one session > is no guarantee that a message with UID 1232 exists in mailbox FOO in > another session (whether simultaneous or future). > > UID 1232 tells you two things. First: > . if the message exists in the other session > *and* > . if the UIDVALIDITY of the mailbox is the same in both sessions > then, and *only* then, UID 1232 will refer to the same message. This is what I need. > > Second, it is guaranteed that: > . if the UIDVALIDITY of the mailbox is the same in both sessions > then UID 1232 will not refer to some other message. This is what I need. How this is not shared state between sessions I'm not sure, but perhaps it is semantics. > > >> Once again, why do you have multiple simultaneous sessions to the same > >> mailbox from the same client? > > This is a good question, but before we diverge the discussion I would > > like to fully understand the base behavior. > > I really think that it would be better if you could explainh what it is > you wish to accomplish, and hopefully then we can tell you: > . if IMAP can do it > . how to do it with IMAP > Otherwise, we're going to continue talking past each other. I prefer to fix miscommunication before changing subjects. Mike
