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

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Fri, 01 June 2012 08:15 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 9D6A721F85CE for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 DYd+TlOmkGhW for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B739E21F8484 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019056515@smtp.qbik.com>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:15:20 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:15:19 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <4FC85B2E.3030808@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Message-Id: <em582396f6-3215-4018-97d4-cc6232d7a99a@boist>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0
Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:15:41 -0000

  
Hi
  
You may consider this to be merely a documentation bug. It was that 
until the first implementations were rolled out the door. It's no 
longer that. 
  
WinGate doesn't send EXPUNGEs (it explicitly suppresses them for this). 
  Presumably there are other servers, which is what caused Mozilla to 
implement MOVE in Thunderbird (AOL? Fastmail?).  So there are millions 
of clients deployed.
  
All I'm saying is there are deployed servers and clients that follow 
the current I-D.
  
Therefore If you change the behaviour without changing the method name 
/ advertisement or any discernable behaviour from the client then a 
server won't know if a client expects EXPUNGE responses or not, and / 
or whether an EXPUNGE response will break it.  And there will be 
clients out there who expect one or the other behaviour, and older 
servers who do it one way, and maybe newer ones that do it the new way.
  
And the expunge is completely redundant from an information POV.  You 
do a UID MOVE 1:1000 and you really want to get 1000 expunges back?   
What does that really tell you that you couldn't deduce from the final 
OK result (no error case)?
  
We could very easily add the EXPUNGES back in.  But that may cause a 
nightmare of support.  We can't force everyone to upgrade their server. 
  We can't force everyone to upgrade it in synch with all their email 
clients that use it.
  
Now this all may be moot if we know of no clients that can't handle 
either behaviour (e.g. existing deployed clients that will break if 
they get an EXPUNGE back from a MOVE).  If  there are no such clients, 
is it even broken then? Why do we need the EXPUNGE responses?  It 
appears to work fine without them.
  
It should just be a question of whether the EXPUNGE reponses solve some 
outstanding problem / hole in the currently deployed method.
  
Otherwise this might be a good case for a new name, like MOVEX or 
something.
  
Adrien
  
----
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/



------ Original Message ------
From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" <imap5@ietf.org>
Sent: 1/06/2012 6:03:26 p.m.
Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned 
during UID MOVE?
>Listen closely. The missing EXPUNGEs are a document bug, not 
>representative of any servers I know. 
>
>Arnt