On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 00:52, Paul Jarc wrote: > Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Message being deleted" case was just discussed in January (Subject: > > Multiple command clarification). Issuing NO isn't a very good idea, > > rather use NIL if you don't know the data. > > Why should deletion be handled differently from any other error, like > EACCES?
I was assuming a server operated on a message store that loses the message completely when one IMAP connection expunges it. So if another IMAP connection still thinks it's there (no untagged EXPUNGE sent) and tries to FETCH it, it doesn't mean that anything is wrong really. Client just isn't fully synchronized yet. EACCES and similiar errors are then actual server (configuration) problems which IMAP clients can't normally cause.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
