>Christof Drescher writes: >> My idea would be to try it (NO [PLEASENOOP] first; if the client does >> NOT catch up after this command (the test is very simple to >> implement), the server can still disconnect the client (which would >> help for clients not (yet) supporting it). > >In that case, just send your PLEASENOOP as an unsolicited OK at the time >of the expunge, without waiting for a command from the client. Maybe >call it EXPUNGING.
OK, but this does not resolve the problem with the answer to a FETCH/STORE/SEARCH, which was all about. An unsolicited [EXPUNGING] might be funny to inform some client, but the [NOOPFIRST] or whatever is meant as a "you really should do noop now"-command to the client at the point when a FETCH/STORE/SEARCH fails. >Mark, what would you think about that? That's what we're all interested now :-) We have a few votes for [NOOPFIRST] now... Christof
