Hi, > If you consider me to be credible, then you should pay attention to my > advice. If you don't, then please say so, so I know that it > is alright to > delete all future mail from you unread. > I do take your advice as credeble, but I don't have to agree with your opinion. It does not make my or your comments less worthy and your statement simply implies that you will ignore anyone who does not agree with you.
> IMAP does. Live is unfair sometimes. That is not an argument. > I take offense at that statement. Do you think that I am a > stupid person > who has no idea about shared mailboxes, and that my years of > efforts to > create shared mailboxes on UNIX (at a time when I was told it was > "impossible") were worthless? I did not attack you personally, I stated my opinion that that there were problems, looking at the discussions on this list I would say that others agree with me. I have a great deal of respect for you but that does not mean I have to agree with you. > Other servers have managed to implement shared mailboxes in IMAP, > including all the servers (note the plural) that I wrote. > Other clients > have managed to work with shared mailboxes in IMAP, including all the > clients (note the plural) that I wrote. Please enlighten me as to which clients can be connected concurrently and will not take 5 minutes to notice that the other client expunges a message, or ask for a message that has not existed for 5 minutes, or require that I configure special client option X,Y,Z. This has to be simple enough for secretary to do it. I have tried: Outlook, Outlook Express, Kmail, Ximian, TheBat!, Eudora, Thunderbird and Mulberry. I will not recommend Pine to my customers as they want a GUI. Please recommend one that handles concurrency smoothly. > IDLE does not, repeat *NOT*!!, solve the problem. The fact > that you think > that IDLE solves the problem suggests that you still do not fully > understand how IMAP works. Maybe I don't know how IMAP works. I have implemented changes according to the protocol and the discussions here. As far as I can tell my implementation is complient. The problem that I see is that there is no way for the server to tell the client that its request is garbage because the mailbox status has changed. My server will handle a sequence of fetches at 30 minute intervals while messages are being expunged by other clients. But it will not server up the contents of messages that have been expunged. Is this complant, no, I know its not. I have chosen the route of NIL returns. None of the above clients have a problem with it. Please offer me a solution whereby I can delete the message from the mailbox and still return information to the client that makes me compliant with the protocol. > > I'm trying to help you write a good server so this not happen. I am > finding it increasingly difficult to do so. > I'm sorry that my opinions make it so difficult. I have implemented everything you have recommended up to this point. I do not believe that we do ourselves justice in life if we except the status quo and never question or argue for a better solution to lifes problems. I want to offer my customers a solution where if I expunge a message in one folder, all the other clients see it expunge at the same time. I want them to know that if they delete it, it really has gone. I'm afraid that I may be stupid but I am unable to see what is wrong with having a way to tell a client that it needs to resyncronise its cache, or requiring that clients handle a response that is in the protocol, even though it might be unexpected. I am amazed that it was not included. Please do not take my comments as a personal attack. I am trying to find a way to implement this protocol within the constraints that are placed upon me. One of those is that messages get deleted so live with it. Regards Richard Bang Floosietek Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.floosietek.com
