Philip Guenther wrote: >>Not only that. Two examples: 1) Mails which confidential data should be >>erasable as soon as possible; it is not acceptable (especially on heavily >>connected mailboxes) to have it delivered after an EXPUNGE anymore. > >Who decides what is acceptable here? Confidentiality is generally tied >to legal or contractual requirements; is there some legal definition >and/or body of relevant case-law that is controlling in this situation?
That need not be. Confidentially can be a purely subjective idea, and therefore it may only hold for the user himself. >That you used the phrase "as soon as possible" might be considered to >weaken the argument. If the requirement isn't absolute, why can't it >accept 'ghost' messages? The argument was just against keeping the mails around though they should have been expunged before, so it's no argument against 'ghost' messages (that would meet the requirement too). Ghosts were abandoned for another reason as Arnt stated. >(Also, why does it matter whether the mailbox is heavily connected or >only lightly connected? I don't see why that would matter as far as >server design or the legal effects run.) Correct, but on single-access mailboxes the problem almost never happens to exist. >>2) we work on a shared Mailbox ourselves, where each mail should be >>work on only once. We set it flagged when we're on it, and delete it >>when we're done. Does not help if they fly around after expunge either. > >That the message be inaccessible after EXPUNGE doesn't seem a real >requirement here, as clients would just skip messages marked \deleted. No. There are clients which show messages marked as deleted only with some sort of flag or striking. Also, it is still accessible like before. I want the message to disappear on the server at once, which happens at an EXPUNGE for all clients. Of course, clients already having downloaded it are another case, but I'd like to do what I can to have it be "as good as possible". >Atomic fetch-and-set of flags is addressed by the CONDSTORE extension, >which I understand to have beeen designed for *exactly* the situation >you describe. Might be. I'll have a look at it, but as I read the synopsis, it does not deal with EXPUNGE, so it misses the point. Christof
