Philip Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the experience of seeing this same argument about EXPUNGE and FETCH > repeat over and over with no new points
I saw the thread last time around - I didn't respond then, because I was reading it late. I think I have raised *some* new points; has the possible data loss from NIL come up before? > If the error has broken the IMAP abstraction such that some > guarantee that the protocol provides to clients is no longer true, > then the server should report the error (as a human readable > description) to the client and close the connection rather than let > the client continue to operate with an incorrect assumption. That may work in the EXPUNGE case, but in other cases where reconnecting won't clear up the problem (such as an admin screwing up the permissions), then it seems disconnecting won't help, and NO is the only honest answer. > The overwhelming vote of support personal is to *NOT* [warn the user > when a message was deleted]. I think that's the strongest case I've seen yet in favor of that position. > It appears your real disagreement is with the IMAP mailbox abstraction > with its guarantee that messages won't randomly disappear beneath a > client. If there is indeed such a guarantee, then I have two problems with it: it's too cumbersome, and it isn't clearly stated in RFC3501. paul
