On 01/02/04 11:03:33 -0800 Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Christof Drescher wrote:IMHO, RFC abc, subparagraph x.y with alternative this-and-that is not going to make implementors really give anything on it. A clearly stated paragraph in IMAP4rev2 would most probably do so, and clarify the issue - so a tagged no would not be "bad server juju", but an accepted way of dealing with the issue.
I'm afraid that you are going to lose this argument.
From the point of view of users and client authors, the other servers getit right. The other servers do not respond with NO to a valid FETCH. Therefore, a server that sends NO to a valid FETCH will be seen as broken by users and client authors.
can you perhaps further elaborate on your thoughts on why exactly you feel that an untagged NO FETCH response is evil. Rfc2060 and 3501 seem to leave this option open and I cannot see how they would forbid such behaviour.
For me the best common practice promoted by rfc2180 seems quite logical and it also seems several server vendors seem to have implemented "no fetch" responses for expunged messages.
The discussion so far has been much heated as usual for this kind of stuff. Everybody seems to think they want it their way and makes up arguments why it is logical this way or the other. It seems that people like to implement this the way it's least painfull for the kind of mailstore they have.
Greetings Christian
-- Christian Kratzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] CK Software GmbH http://www.cksoft.de/ Phone: +49 7452 889 135 Fax: +49 7452 889 136
