Subject: [lemonade] Re: Planning for meeting in Minneapolis

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:44:48 +0000

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Alexey needs to propose what changes to make to CondStore, as a 
> concrete written proposal to the list.

I've just submitted a new draft that describes how CONDSTORE 
modification sequences can be used to track expunged messages. Before it 
is announced, people can find it at:
http://ietf.webdav.org/imapext/draft-melnikov-imap-expunged-00.txt

I will welcome all suggestions, especially on issues marked with <<>> in 
the document.

I can rework RECONNECT to reference the new document, if people feel it 
is a good idea.

Alexey

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:51:33 +0200

> I will welcome all suggestions, especially on issues marked with <<>> in 

It shows that HIGHESTMODSEQ update is sent after EXPUNGE command. What
about when other session did the EXPUNGE and we're seeing untagged
EXPUNGEs? Maybe always send it after untagged expunges (and don't
mention EXPUNGE command at all)?

Servers supporting UNSELECT should most likely also send HIGHESTMODSEQ
just as with CLOSE, but this isn't mentioned. And what about with
SELECT? Maybe just point out more generally that "when using a command
which closes the mailbox, send HIGHESTMODSEQ". Perhaps LOGOUT should do
that too?

   <<What if the server can’t remember some expunged UIDs, for example
   the provided mod-sequence is too old? Can the server just return
   all UIDs not in the UID set? This can generate additional traffic,
   but should be Ok otherwise.>>

Yes, I think so.

In 3.4 EXPUNGED Response it seems rather useless trying to rewrite what
RFC3501 says about EXPUNGEs. Just point out that it works exactly as
normal untagged EXPUNGE? It would be really bad if they accidentally got
different rules.

Maybe rename the EXPUNGED to UIDEXPUNGE or similar to make it more clear
that it's sending UIDs and not sequences?

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:34:45 -0800

So, does this mean that we don't need to yank CondStore out of the RFC 
queue?

thanks,
Lisa

On Jan 31, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> modification sequences can be used to track expunged messages. Before 
> it is announced, people can find it at:
> I will welcome all suggestions, especially on issues marked with <<>> 
> in the document.
>
> I can rework RECONNECT to reference the new document, if people feel 
> it is a good idea.
>
> Alexey
>
>