Re: IMAP Replace update

Pete -

Thanks for catching that. I agree and have marked the correction for the 
next revision.

Stuart

On 7/22/15 9:12 PM, Pete Maclean wrote:
> 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

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