Re: IMAP Replace update

Stu,

Earlier I expressed some concerns about the design of REPLACE which, 
I came to realize, stemmed from a misunderstanding on my part as to 
how the command is intended to work.  Thank you for your kind and 
clarifying responses to those.

Reading this fresh document I find just one thing to comment on, the 
statement:  "Finally, the replaced and replacing messages SHOULD NOT 
be present in the mailbox at the same time."   I think this could be 
confusing because two mailboxes can be involved, as in the case you 
suggested of a message in a drafts folder being replaced by one in a 
sent folder.  And surely the admonition should apply equally well in 
such a case.  So maybe it would be better to say something 
like:  "Finally, the replaced and replacing messages SHOULD NOT both 
be present in the mailbox or mailboxes at the same time."

Pete Maclean

At 06:57 AM 7/20/2015, Stu Brandt wrote:
>Based on discussion at IETF93, draft-brandt-imap-replace-01 has been 
>submitted. The primary changes are a relaxing of the atomicity 
>requirement and more information on the combination of REPLACE with 
>CATENATE.  Feedback is certainly welcomed.

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