IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE?

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Wed, 30 May 2012 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.com>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FB021F86A4 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 14:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1XF5F3RMjdOn for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AD321F8679 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 14:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.1 (Build 3414)) with SMTP id <0019053826@smtp.qbik.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 09:10:38 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:11:12 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <76722931-7258-4A3F-9F60-14DA74FC8B1A@iki.fi>
Message-Id: <em9d0d4829-f230-4345-b96f-3df5d0be4eef@boist>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE?
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:10:41 -0000

  
what about using the sequences in the final tagged response as an 
indication of what was actually successfully moved..  the ones that map 
source messages to new UIDs.
  
We suppress EXPUNGE responses during MOVE already.  When you're moving 
a large set of messages, this improves things quite a bit in terms of 
bw and speed.

  
----
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/



------ Original Message ------
From: "Timo Sirainen" <tss@iki.fi>
To: "Cyrus Daboo" <cyrus@daboo.name>
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Sent: 31/05/2012 5:27:22 a.m.
Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned 
during UID MOVE?
>On 30.5.2012, at 20.20, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>So Arnt tells me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If I can implement it this way without violating the spec:
>>>
>>>1. Verify that ACLs allow expunge, fail if not
>>>2. Do atomic UID COPY without enforcing quota limits
>>>3. Expunge the messages
>>>[4. If expunge for some strange reason fails now, there are probably
>>>duplicates now. I'm not sure if I want to bother fixing that situation.
>>>It should "never" happen anyway.]
>>>
>>>then I could add it to Dovecot pretty much immediately.
>>>
>>
>>
>>So if the expunge does fail, how are you going to report that to the client? Arnt's current spec does not show any * N EXPUNGE responses coming back, so I am assuming that the client is supposed to implicitly assume the expunges took place, which would cause a problem if they did not take place. But that seems wrong to me - shouldn't UID MOVE cause * N EXPUNGE to be sent for each message that was actually moved?
>>
>
>
>I assumed that this was a bug in the example and was going to report it as some point. I think the EXPUNGE/VANISHED replies should be sent in any case, even if MOVE was required to be fully atomic. Otherwise if the UID MOVE command sends an untagged FETCH/EXPUNGE reply it wouldn't be obvious if the sequence number referred to the state before or after the MOVE expunges.
>
>_______________________________________________
>imap5 mailing list
>imap5@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email