On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Christof Drescher wrote: > It is neither unilateral nor unexpected, if this information is given > by the admins. If they do, everything is ok, if they don't, it is their > fault, not the programmer's.
When a user's client does not work the way the user expects, the user will blame the client, not their system administrator. And the client authors are going to lash out at any server which turns out to be the cause of the problems. > b) there is nothing as a "broken behavior". I do not propose a change > which would "break" any client, since all rfc-conforming clients > would not give any error message. Many widely-distributed clients do not handle unsolicited expunge responses well. Furthermore, you have to defer EXPUNGE responses in the case of STORE (as opposed to UID STORE). Have you considered what happens if the user attempts to undelete a message prior to any command which permits an EXPUNGE response? I doubt that you have really considered the implications of this on client behavior. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
