Michael Wener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 23:43, Mark Crispin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Michael Wener wrote: ... >> UID 1232 tells you two things. First: >> . if the message exists in the other session >> *and* >> . if the UIDVALIDITY of the mailbox is the same in both sessions >> then, and *only* then, UID 1232 will refer to the same message. > >This is what I need.
UIDs may be a solution to your immediate problem. They may also be enough rope to let survive a client design that makes poor use of protocol features. The history of clients that make heavy use of UIDs is not a tale of efficiency. Note that you still have to wait until the server tells you the message exists. Until then it is completely free to say "no such message". ... >How this is not shared state between sessions I'm not sure, but perhaps >it is semantics. That a message with a given UID exists is per-session state: it exists from the moment the server announces it via a "* N EXISTS" response until the server sends a "* M EXPUNGE" response for it. That a given UID in a given mailbox with a given UIDVALIDITY maps to a specific message for as long as it exists is unchanging. Does something that never changes count as "shared state"? ... >> >> Once again, why do you have multiple simultaneous sessions to the same >> >> mailbox from the same client? >> > This is a good question, but before we diverge the discussion I would >> > like to fully understand the base behavior. >> >> I really think that it would be better if you could explainh what it is >> you wish to accomplish, and hopefully then we can tell you: >> . if IMAP can do it >> . how to do it with IMAP >> Otherwise, we're going to continue talking past each other. > >I prefer to fix miscommunication before changing subjects. This mailing list is the tech-support for the IMAP protocol. The single most important thing when communicating with tech-support is to describe your goal or intent. Spending hours working out how to do something that turns out to be a step away from the ultimate goal is frustrating to all involved. There's a good chance that the discussion of how to attain the real goal would have answered the original question or rendered it moot. Philip Guenther
