On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 09:42, Philip Guenther wrote: > Michael Wener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... > 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. >
I understand. Thank You. > 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"? If they have equal values in each session, I would think so. Maybe the key here is that, as your explanation above points out, it is a matter of when the state becomes visible, and in the case of EXPUNGE leaves visibility, to the session. Is it fair to say that once a UID is visible within a session it is shared state? ... > >> 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 My goal and intent at the moment is to understand the concept of a session within IMAP. > 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 I'm not frustrated. I'm learning a significant amount from this discussion given my goal. I appreciate those that are taking the time to answer. > the discussion of how to attain the real goal would have answered > the original question or rendered it moot. Could have. I've always believed in a good understanding of first principals. The understanding I gain in this discussion will greatly aid in future discussion as well as having the possibility of rendering a question I may ask in the future moot. Mike
