Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 , \recent and search new

Brandon Long <> Mon, 28 October 2019 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5692E120096 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNN8DAEMfI38 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD9512008A for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j85so7234904vsd.11 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mx5dzF/EKBLth/bTG9ApCU5gXaj21vgmynf+YC6dXC8=; b=stEfZuVCpDwnJAXsF0LKWdAjduI/f2g/xcKr2NeQL1mslOGSu9ejmS5uDvBSSTUjgf Eq8eSa4tfJ7V2ebc8z6vqKAfZO6NeTp0o27B7+EKoyGuY30t3CPS0zlECU1si3ZmaMe5 4BCfBeue4WFd4swU9DcmP1peVhwObK+1H7MSBELdhnNH24nHhqGI1EEzMIGQjzceaLXK CQSzJLafz943JrCE/1ijeE+RclWtyEviwHbAeKHe0pkqu4vyOBJz86COegUdvl5ejaLf UHCrYoCYfB//BqEkOFfJFjkZVtM4b7cAllQMCC/A+cjmCmTmo2IMzl0t8CaUXMdsCZ11 vx3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mx5dzF/EKBLth/bTG9ApCU5gXaj21vgmynf+YC6dXC8=; b=XnwSLA8DBO5mE6pIdx1plzy4Oy5gJAyjUj5vznw6WEJqOfVpoub/o0Qq5CDjEJtyx5 zrONTEqHvLc/0IO/IDJl0TGxbnQ2t90HIl7M2ySxm2pHfvicbgnLvXgNdLogBQ6fd275 RME7UYuRrZh78FY3o12iZoy0nIzIcDZQb7qTYMlqQzDKWcGGtvXNeyqLOh015PBDatOW UNLj5pUyC8qo4s5xDZIA+Vd4h6IbI+XANiB1wwUZjj8rYpXdJsFzHGLMDF1iqZY0tjEL UeuCjj4zGQkLBSKuAjdub2oRQ0//ZXBLRlYSQUcaX5CIaShP7BbiexvqHd1hzCP1GCIc P7KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU0nA8OEnzKJEOtAK//IQVShalQh7gibLNwyXMXMTELTjlESBrD 8WyY/P4oiGgS2hBO7oXIFf+veI6YHEKfYOVhz5UDrMU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzyiNLz+FAvc5gC4XX0KOHm7ix7ZZfzSxK36mD+9AIh6O9bADPN5BtZJdJV446xV2YyylC4vIrkf6iDAUGAU9A=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:304a:: with SMTP id w71mr9676426vsw.92.1572294849577; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Brandon Long <>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:33:57 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe65560595fe6b7e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 , \recent and search new
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 20:34:13 -0000

Pretty sure we implement it as "nothing is \Recent", which is also valid in
the sense that it's always possible a different client saw them as new

Using UNSEEN seems like a different type of lie, it is closer to what
\Recent means... but since they both existed, one would think the
difference between them may be what people consider useful.


On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:45 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen <>

> I had a look at the draft recently and will be sending a number of
> messages, each pointing out a single issue, mostly simple. I'll space them
> out and send one every few days. First up: search new and \recent.
> I suggest that deprecating \recent be given a rationale. I suggest the
> following additional paragraph in 2.3.2:
> "Many modern IMAP clients automatically reconnect. For example, mobile
> email clients may dis- and reconnect whenever they enter or leave an area
> with WLAN coverage. Because of this, messages can lose their \recent
> status
> apparently at random, and using \recent (e.g. via the NEW search key) has
> become unreliable. For this reason (among others), \recent is now
> deprecated."
> The NEW search key needs to be changed, either to deprecate it or to make
> it an alias for UNSEEN. I think the best course of action is the one that
> permits the smallest client diff. Suggested wording for section 6.4.4:
> "Since \recent is now deprecated, the NEW search key may now be an alias
> for the UNSEEN. Servers that also advertise IMAP4rev1 may implement NEW
> either as an alias for UNSEEN or as specified in IMAP4rev1. Clients that
> implement IMAP4rev2 should not rely on either NEW being equal to UNSEEN or
> NEW returning a subset of UNSEEN."
> Section 6.3.2 contains an example that doesn't include RECENT. I suggest
> an
> additional paragraph:
> "Note that IMAP4rev1 compliant servers also send e.g. "* 0 RECENT", which
> IMAP4rev2 clients are advised to ignore."
> Arnt
> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list