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

[Timo Sirainen <[e-mail]>]

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.