Re: Exclusive-access locking of maildrop

[Steve Dorner <[e-mail]>]

>I suggest changing to spec. to say that a server MAY
>acquire an exclusive-access lock if it is desirable, but
>that it is not required.

I think the terminology used may have been unix-centric, but I'm terribly
worried about removing the locking requirement.  If you do not require that
the server 'lock' the 'maildrop', then you will have implementors who do an
IMAP sort of thing, where messages come and go while the client is
examining the maildrop.

And this just can't be tolerated.  One reason it can't be tolerated is that
the client can't know what's going on because the only machine-readable
part of the error code is the "-".  :-(

Now, I don't think you need to take the requirement literally, in that you
refuse to deliver any more mail to the user while POP3 is happening.
Rather, just don't allow other agents to modify the messages the POP3
server is dealing with.  If you want to codify some rule like that, I've no
objection.

--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated
 "There's nothing wrong with you that can't be cured
  with a little Prozac and a polo mallet." - Woody Allen