The IMAP specification does not specifically outlaw multiple SEARCH responses.
Note that the the IMAP unsolicited data model (e.g. section 7, "The client MUST be prepared to accept any response at all times") indicates that an untagged SEARCH can happen at any time; an example even indicates that an untagged SEARCH can happen (albeit has not obvious purpose) when no SEARCH command is in progress. So it is clearly valid and an IMAP client must accept it. The only ambiguity is what to do about it; whether multiple untagged SEARCH responses are culminative, or if each successive response replaces the previous one. I have always believed that it is culminative (and that is how I implemented it in my client), but have been unwilling to put that down in a formal ruling for fear that maybe someone might come up with a reason for it to replace instead. The real question is why EIMS needs to do this. It is arguably silly because it wastes 10 octets for each extraneous response in the culminative case, and much more for the replace case. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
