Re: IMAP REPLACE extension

I did not feel confident enough to say so in my first message but I 
also thought about suggesting we have UID REPLACE only.  I would 
prefer to see that as a suitable compromise for this extension and 
not as a push to start eliminating sequence numbers.

Pete

At 07:43 PM 5/5/2015, Adrien de Croy wrote:


>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Stu Brandt" <[email protected]>
>To: "Adrien de Croy" <[email protected]>; "'[email protected]'" 
><[email protected]>
>Sent: 6/05/2015 10:59:31 a.m.
>Subject: Re: [imapext] IMAP REPLACE extension
>
>>Comments inline.
>>
>>On 5/5/15 6:31 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok
>>>
>>>do you think many / any people would even want to use this with seq
>>>numbers, or should it be UID REPLACE only?
>>
>>I'll flip the question back to you...do you think this draft is the 
>>right place to stop supporting sequence numbers when referring to a 
>>message in the store?
>fair enough.
>
>But I think it could be justifiable at some stage to take a position 
>that certain extensions are only available using UIDs.  It's 
>optional after all.  In fact wasn't MOVE debated around this point, 
>re safety thereof?  I guess MOVE is special in that potentially 2 
>mailboxes are involved.
>
>>
>>For a client looking to implement REPLACE, they're likely already 
>>in Selected mode since their current code needs to do a STORE. 
>>Closing the door on the use of sequence numbers seemed to be 
>>forging an unnecessary new path.
>>
>>So much as I dislike sequence numbers, I did not think this was the 
>>right vehicle to pursue it.
>>
>>>
>>>I don't have a problem with it being in selected state only.  Was just
>>>trying to explain the rationale.
>>>
>>>I guess it is quite different to an APPEND, since that generates a new
>>>MSGNO and UID, which is not what happens for REPLACE.
>>
>>Sorry, but that's not the case either. Message bodies are immutable 
>>things, so not changing UID or MSGNO would break the basic 
>>client-server model where clients fetch body once, store it 
>>locally, and never need to ask for body ever again.
>commonly in drafts folder it will actually end up with the same 
>MSGNO but I guess there will be an expunge notification in between.
>
>>
>>I was being somewhat literal when I wrote:
>>
>>"In its simplest form, the REPLACE command is an atomic 
>>encapsulation of STORE + UID EXPUNGE + APPEND" in section 2.
>>
>>The examples in section 3 also show APPENDUID responses to cover 
>>the factthat the new revision is considered its own message with its own UID.
>
>OK.
>
>
>>
>>I suppose I should clarify the examples a bit more with untagged 
>>EXISTS as well per recommendation of 6.3.11 in rfc3501.
>Sorry I should do more than just glance over the draft before commenting.
>
>Cheers
>
>Adrien
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Adrien
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>imapext mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext