Re: ProtonMail Bridge Patch

Jakub Ječmínek <[email protected]> writes:

> "Eric Abrahamsen" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> I might be wrong of course but I think that the latter and that there's
>>> good chance sorting the headers would fix this issue.
>>
>> I still haven't found anything that looks like a hard requirement that
>> headers be sorted, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
> That was only my guess (based on very shallow understanding of the Gnus
> internals). I can try to implement sorting and see if that helps. This
> is what I found inside Gnus manual but I'm not sure if that's relevant
> for this issue:
>
> [...] article numbers must be assigned in order of arrival in the group;
> this is not necessarily the same as the date of the message.

Huh. Yeah, I absolutely believe it's true, I just wish I could pinpoint
where.

>> I also wasn't able to find anything explicit in RFC 3501 or 9051 about
>> the order of FETCH responses -- for my information, can you point me in
>> the right direction?
>
> That's the thing. There's nothing explicit in RFC 3501 about the message
> order so AFAIK the consensus is that UIDs don't have to be sorted.

Oh I see. Well that's fair enough, and I don't think there's any
intrinsic reason why Gnus should be imposing its internal restrictions
on external servers. The assumption is just that Gnus article numbers
and IMAP UIDs are the same idea -- monotonically-increasing integer
identifiers that don't get reused within a group -- so we could map them
one-to-one. But obviously it's more complicated than that.