Re: [Imap-protocol] IMAP SUBMIT Extension, take two

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 March 2014 19:48:51 CEST, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > But now we're proposing a state transition from "UNSENT" to "SENT" - and 
> I
> > strongly believe that rates a readable change on the server, either a 
> flag
> > or a standard annotation name.  All I think it needs is a transition from
> > "no flag present" to "\Sent" flag present, or $Sent if \Sent is 
> considered
> > too impossible to add at this stage of the game.
> 
> Any particular reason why sticking with $Submitted [1] is not OK?
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5550#section-5.10

No, you're right.  Apart from the whole \ vs non \ flags issue [1].

Let's not confuse things with more flags.  So define SUBMIT to:

a) fail if $Submitted is set on the message
b) fail if $SubmitPending is NOT set on the message (you can append
   with $SubmitPending set, so there's no round-trip cost)
c) add $Submitted on success
d) clear $SubmitPending on success

(in that order I think, if you can't do it atomically - it's easier to
 know that you need to clear $SubmitPending later than to know that
 you ever planned to submit the message if there are no flags on it)

Bron ( and yes, maybe I should actually re-read your draft, which
       probably says exactly these things )

 

[1] personally, I wish there was no such thing as \ in flags, because
    it means that SOME flag names aren't an atom, but there you go.




-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol