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

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Timo,
(Changing thread since we are now into a technical issue rather than 
charter)

--On May 30, 2012 7:59:19 PM +0300 Timo Sirainen <[e-mail]> 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?

-- 
Cyrus Daboo