Re: [Imap-protocol] UW-IMAPD and its interpretation of ESEARCH
Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKHUCzwy3dS2Z8S2TgdCF-SCqE0wyTB7OwbY9uWa9P_3tHk6eQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>wrote: > On 6 Jun 2013, at 21:15, Jan Kundrát <[email protected]> wrote: > > The option b) looks like a reasonable stopgap measure with a very > limited potential for false positives. It is also implementable very > quickly within my client. The option a) will require a bit more work, but > it looks like something more "robust" than b). > > Option a) looks quite unreliable (and dangerous) to me. > I hope newer versions of UW don't suffer from this. > > Yes, go for (b); it's what I'd do. (In fact, Inky possible already does this). I might see if I can knock out an RFC 4731 bis which clarifies this. _______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol