Yes, this seems to be the consensus.There's your problem. You were informed of new mail in session 1, and you assumed that this information is valid in session 2. It isn't.
It's not concensus; it's the specification.
You can not carry over state from one session to another.Where in the RFCs is this stated or implied?
The better question is: where in the RFCs does it state or imply that you can carry over state from one session to another?
Consider carefully what state-carryover would imply to a client that is not aware of the state in any other session. The client couldn't use any data that it got, because it could be invalidated, without notice, by some other client.
IMAP goes to great efforts to guarantee each session precise state, and to synchronize state changes precisely. This can not happen if there is carryover between sessions.
Also, obviously some state is carried over as stated in 2.3.1.1.
Actually, that is not the case.
Note in the second paragraph in 2.3.1.1 about the UIDVALIDITY. A compliant server could issue different UIDVALIDITY values in different sessions and have nothing in common between the two.
The only thing that UIDs do is allow you to refer to the same message between sessions. They do not, in any way, guarantee that that message actually exists.
Once again, why do you have multiple simultaneous sessions to the same mailbox from the same client? I think that you may have a more fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP, and I'd like to clear that up.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
