Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> to: >> ; * represents the largest number in use. In >> ; the case of message sequence numbers, it is >> ; the number of messages in a non-empty mailbox >> ; (it is an error to use message sequence numbers >> ; in an empty mailbox). In the case of unique >> ; identifiers, it is the unique identifier of the >> ; last message in the mailbox or, if the mailbox >> ; is empty, the UIDNEXT value. > > I feel "an error" is a bit loose. Exactly what will happen? It is > not impossible for a client to send e.g. a UID SEARCH UID 1:* to a > mailbox before it discover that the mailbox is empty. > > I think it would be simpler to say that * represents a missing article > if the mailbox is empty. Thus it is not an error to use * in a UID > set in empty mailboxes, but rather it simply doesn't match any > articles.
Sorry, it seems I was talking about UID sets while the text was about message sets. However, I think my point is still valid. I also recall from a comp.mail.imap discussion that it was the word "sequence" that caused confusion, some people (me included) regard "sequences" to be ordered. It was suggested to use the word "set" throughout the specification instead, since that doesn't imply that any ordering should be infered. The current document had already been changed to that effect then, but it seems this is now reverted.
