On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 23:55 +0200, Volker Wysk wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 03.08.2019, 22:45 +0100 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 23:21 +0200, Volker Wysk wrote:
> > > > > So your suggestion is to change the IMAP protocol and have all
> > > > > IMAP
> > > > > servers implement the change. Good luck with that.
> > > >
> > > > No. I'm just trying to make things clear.
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest, is that evolution should just ignore the server's
> > > > response ("invalid id") in the context which we have here, since
> > > > it
> > > > can
> > > > be perfectly okay, and not be a server-side error.
> > >
> > > I mean, evolution should ignore the server's response and cancel
> > > what
> > > it was about to do. Of course it can't just continue, after the
> > > "invalid id" response has happened.
> >
> > So to repeat what I already said: you're proposing that Evolution
> > should ignore a server-side error on the supposition that it might
> > not
> > be an error.
>
> I wouldn't call the server's response an error.
We're going round in circles. The server responds with an error because
it *IS AN ERROR*. It was asked for a message which it doesn't have.
That is an error. It doesn't matter that this was caused by a different
client deleting the message, because the server is not designed to tell
one client what another client is doing, and the IMAP protocol is not
designed to enable clients to cooperate with each other. Putting it
bluntly, if your setup is doing this then your setup is wrong, and if
you don't like it then you need to get a change included in the IMAP
definition.
poc
_______________________________________________
evolution-list mailing list
[email protected]
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
