On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 15:40, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Michael Wener wrote: ... > >> assumed that this information is valid in session 2. It isn't. > > Yes, this seems to be the consensus. > > It's not concensus; it's the specification.
Where? > >> 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? > Why is this a better question? I consider one of the goals of specification to be reduced ambiguity. I would think that if there was expected behavior then it would be better to be written down? > 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. My consideration at the moment is only coordinated sessions. Sessions that are aware of each others logic and are behaving in concert. > > 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. I'm still not sure what session state we are talking about. Obviously sequence numbers. Is there anything else in this category? > > > 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. If they allow you to refer to the same message between sessions how is this not state being carried over from one session to another? I realize that the server has the option to invalidate the state between sessions, but by your own statement this is intended to be the exception. > > 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 This is a good question, but before we diverge the discussion I would like to fully understand the base behavior. > fundamental misunderstanding about IMAP, and I'd like to clear that up. Thank You. I may. Mike
