On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 15:30, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Michael Wener wrote: ... > > There is no guarantee within a *single* session that a sequence number > > is valid. Another session could have expunged SN N while my fetch was in > > transit in the network. > > Also incorrect. An untagged EXPUNGE can only be transmitted when a > command other than FETCH, STORE, and SEARCH is in progress. Until such a > command is in progress, the sequence remains valid even if the message was > expunged in another session. >
Do you mean as in RFC2180 sec 4.1.1? The server does have the option of using section sec 4.1.3, no? When I say invalid above, all I mean is that the SN no longer refers to what the client thought it did prior to the external event that removed the message. > > For example on Exchange 2000 I get the peculiar > > series of responses. > > That behavior is now deprecated. Refer to RFC 2180; the behaviors > described in 4.1.1 and 4.1.4 are now preferred over 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. > Thanks, this is useful information. Mike
