From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Fri Jun 1 00:51:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942DA21F864C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.317 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id levmCqaAzfGj for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5A321F864B for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EB3F8CBA1; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338537114-10044-10043/11/9; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 07:51:54 +0000 Message-Id: <4FC87496.7080500@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 09:51:50 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <4FC76025.1020508@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 07:51:58 -0000 Sorry about my bad temper earlier this morning. On 05/31/2012 10:58 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > Even though we have to send EXPUNGEs to any other connected > client on that mailbox (that didn't do the move), the approach is a bit > wasteful of bandwidth etc. > > If you issue a command, you want to know when it's done and how it > turned out. If the MOVE completes in its entirety without issue (99.99% > of the time), then a simple "yeah it worked" response is the most > efficient. We can inform of exceptions, e.g. "something broke", or > "these messages didn't work". In the end, if there's a failure so what > if the client has to resynch indices. IMAP is a bit wasteful of bandwidth in many ways. We have a goodish solution for that, RFC 4978, and it's fairly well deployed. Of course we might add Microsoft-like special rules to lessen the pain by each particular instance of bandwidth waste, but since we already have a goodish solution for all of them, why bother? I think that if you really want to not send EXPUNGE, you should provide some numbers to argue your case. Take the log files from some server, analyse the moves. How many messages are affected, and how many bytes would be sent on average for those commands when a) EXPUNGE is used b) EXPUNBGE+COMPRESS=DEFLATE c) VANISHED+C=D and d) nothing. I suspect that b and c will be very, very close to d. (FWIW, the easiest way to simulate b/c is to massage an IMAP session so you get a file containing just what the server sends, and then just 'gzip -1' the prefix up until VANISHED/COMPRESS and until just after that, and look at the size difference. It won't be exact, but fairly good. Or 'gzip -4' or even -9.) Arnt From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 01:15:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6A721F85CE for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.25 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYd+TlOmkGhW for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B739E21F8484 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019056515@smtp.qbik.com>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:15:20 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:15:19 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <4FC85B2E.3030808@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:15:41 -0000 Hi You may consider this to be merely a documentation bug. It was that until the first implementations were rolled out the door. It's no longer that. WinGate doesn't send EXPUNGEs (it explicitly suppresses them for this). = Presumably there are other servers, which is what caused Mozilla to implement MOVE in Thunderbird (AOL? Fastmail?). So there are millions of clients deployed. All I'm saying is there are deployed servers and clients that follow the current I-D. Therefore If you change the behaviour without changing the method name / advertisement or any discernable behaviour from the client then a server won't know if a client expects EXPUNGE responses or not, and / or whether an EXPUNGE response will break it. And there will be clients out there who expect one or the other behaviour, and older servers who do it one way, and maybe newer ones that do it the new way. And the expunge is completely redundant from an information POV. You do a UID MOVE 1:1000 and you really want to get 1000 expunges back? What does that really tell you that you couldn't deduce from the final OK result (no error case)? We could very easily add the EXPUNGES back in. But that may cause a nightmare of support. We can't force everyone to upgrade their server. = We can't force everyone to upgrade it in synch with all their email clients that use it. Now this all may be moot if we know of no clients that can't handle either behaviour (e.g. existing deployed clients that will break if they get an EXPUNGE back from a MOVE). If there are no such clients, is it even broken then? Why do we need the EXPUNGE responses? It appears to work fine without them. It should just be a question of whether the EXPUNGE reponses solve some = outstanding problem / hole in the currently deployed method. Otherwise this might be a good case for a new name, like MOVEX or something. Adrien ---- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" To: "Adrien W. de Croy" Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" Sent: 1/06/2012 6:03:26 p.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >Listen closely. The missing EXPUNGEs are a document bug, not >representative of any servers I know. > >Arnt From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 01:25:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA5221F851A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.412 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrVD+z3e4-PM for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F6B21F84FE for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019056525@smtp.qbik.com>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:25:05 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" , "imap5@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:25:04 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <4FC87496.7080500@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:25:09 -0000 Hi sorry, saw this after my last email ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" > >IMAP is a bit wasteful of bandwidth in many ways. We have a goodish >solution for that, RFC 4978, and it's fairly well deployed. Of course >we might add Microsoft-like special rules to lessen the pain by each >particular instance of bandwidth waste, but since we already have a >goodish solution for all of them, why bother? we support 4978 and it's great for sure. There are a lot of clients that don't support it though. And it has a non-zero additional CPU cost which therefore must affect scalability. But sure, if you're already compressed, then those EXPUNGEs will compress to nearly nothing. They should add 4978 to the LEMONADE profile. It does a better job for = mobile clients than some of the other ones. > > >I think that if you really want to not send EXPUNGE, you should >provide some numbers to argue your case. Take the log files from some >server, analyse the moves. How many messages are affected, and how >many bytes would be sent on average for those commands when a) EXPUNGE = >is used b) EXPUNBGE+COMPRESS=3DDEFLATE c) VANISHED+C=3DD and d) nothing. = > >I suspect that b and c will be very, very close to d. I'm sure you're correct. My main issue is with interop since we have a legacy issue due to the current I-D being in the wild now. Can we just test maybe to see if any existing clients will break on a MOVE that sends EXPUNGEs? If not, then this may be a non-issue. Adrien > > >(FWIW, the easiest way to simulate b/c is to massage an IMAP session >so you get a file containing just what the server sends, and then just = >'gzip -1' the prefix up until VANISHED/COMPRESS and until just after >that, and look at the size difference. It won't be exact, but fairly >good. Or 'gzip -4' or even -9.) > >Arnt >_______________________________________________ >imap5 mailing list >imap5@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 From jkt@flaska.net Fri Jun 1 02:09:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EC321F866E for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u3WZ+KNKCCNP for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serv132.fzu.cz (serv132.fzu.cz [147.231.26.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FAA21F8644 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:09:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJeFyE+T5xpZ/2dsb2JhbABEhU6uZoEHghgBAQUjVRELGAkTAwsCAgkDAgECAUUTCAEBiAcEpV6SUIspgkWCBIESA442gR2FRoEPjmaCYoFUBwI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,698,1330902000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="6069283" Received: from freja.fzu.cz ([147.231.26.89]) by serv147.fzu.cz with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2012 11:09:24 +0200 Received: from svist.flaska.net (nat-1n-33-212.suchdol.net [82.208.33.212]) by freja.fzu.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71DD03DA82 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FC886B8.7040807@flaska.net> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:09:12 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIEt1bmRyw6F0?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig0E455B8A380F5BA6C1B69C21" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:09:28 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig0E455B8A380F5BA6C1B69C21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/01/12 10:15, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > You may consider this to be merely a documentation bug. It was that > until the first implementations were rolled out the door. It's no longe= r > that. =20 > WinGate doesn't send EXPUNGEs (it explicitly suppresses them for this).= > Presumably there are other servers, which is what caused Mozilla to > implement MOVE in Thunderbird (AOL? Fastmail?). So there are millions > of clients deployed. Hi Adrien, what servers and clients actually support the "UID MOVE" command right now, in contrast to non-standard stuff like "UID XMOVE", "x-aolmove" etc? Which of these implementations are designed to not send/expect the EXPUNGE/VANISHED? Honestly, I'm asking, I haven't seen any hard data about the existing support in this thread, and hence I don't know. Cheers, Jan --=20 Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/ --------------enig0E455B8A380F5BA6C1B69C21 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/Ihr4ACgkQamXfqERyJReWAACgjbiK/UMvLshBxbe+mKn8EwPL rLMAnRf6nhBupc2GNHLQwXYR+f85lMTG =BUEW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig0E455B8A380F5BA6C1B69C21-- From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 03:00:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF31A21F865F for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 03:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tx3H8A4f-h6V for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 03:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A216721F84D6 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 03:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019056595@smtp.qbik.com>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:00:41 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: =?utf-8?q?Jan=20Kundr=c3=a1t?= , "imap5@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:00:34 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MBE1D019CE-D00D-4678-B191-95B9802D47B2" In-Reply-To: <4FC886B8.7040807@flaska.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:00:44 -0000 --------=_MBE1D019CE-D00D-4678-B191-95B9802D47B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Sorry, I thought I was clear... WinGate (IMAP server) does this. Adrien ---- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Jan Kundr=C3=A1t" To: "imap5@ietf.org" Sent: 1/06/2012 9:09:12 p.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >On 06/01/12 10:15, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > >> >>You may consider this to be merely a documentation bug. It was that >>until the first implementations were rolled out the door. It's no longer= >>that. >>WinGate doesn't send EXPUNGEs (it explicitly suppresses them for this).= >> Presumably there are other servers, which is what caused Mozilla to >>implement MOVE in Thunderbird (AOL? Fastmail?). So there are millions= >>of clients deployed. >> > > >Hi Adrien, >what servers and clients actually support the "UID MOVE" command right >now, in contrast to non-standard stuff like "UID XMOVE", "x-aolmove" >etc? Which of these implementations are designed to not send/expect the= >EXPUNGE/VANISHED? > >Honestly, I'm asking, I haven't seen any hard data about the existing >support in this thread, and hence I don't know. > >Cheers, >Jan > >-- >Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- >http://trojita.flaska.net/ > --------=_MBE1D019CE-D00D-4678-B191-95B9802D47B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 =
 
Sorry, I thought I was clear... WinGate (IMAP server) does this.
=
 
 
Adrien

 


------ Original Message ------
From: "Jan Kundr=C3= =A1t" <jkt@flaska.net>
To: "imap5@ietf.org" <imap5@ietf.org>=
Sent: 1/06/2012 9:09:12 p.m.
Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited= EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE?
= 
On 06/01/12 10:15, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:


You may consider this to be merely a documentation bug. It was that
until the first implementations were rolled out the door. It's no longer=

that.  
WinGate doesn't send EXPUNGEs (it explicitly suppresses them for this).
 Presumably there are other servers, which is what caused Mozilla to=

implement MOVE in Thunderbird (AOL? Fastmail?).  So there are millions
of clients deployed.



Hi Adrien,
what servers and clients actually support the "UID MOVE" command right
now, in contrast to non-standard stuff like "UID XMOVE", "x-aolmove"
etc? Which of these implementations are designed to not send/expect the
EXPUNGE/VANISHED?

Honestly, I'm asking, I haven't seen any hard data about the existing
support in this thread, and hence I don't know.

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
--------=_MBE1D019CE-D00D-4678-B191-95B9802D47B2-- From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Fri Jun 1 05:26:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB6E11E823C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.364 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P6d-EemZxX78 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5495111E82B1 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45599F8C0D1; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338553593-10044-10043/11/10; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:26:33 +0000 Message-Id: <4FC8B4F8.6060908@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:26:32 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <4FC76025.1020508@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4FC85B2E.3030808@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:26:36 -0000 I'm shocked. The -00 draft is only two months old, and there are already implementations that I don't know about? I suppose this is great news. But to me it's more shocking than anything else. Arnt From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 12:47:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D10611E80A0 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:47:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wFdaT+tsS61K for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBF211E809B for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019057493@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:47:45 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" , "imap5@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:47:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <4FC8B4F8.6060908@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:47:50 -0000 our implementation of MOVE is over a year old there's a previous draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krecicki-imap-move ---- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" To: "imap5@ietf.org" Sent: 2/06/2012 12:26:32 a.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >I'm shocked. The -00 draft is only two months old, and there are >already implementations that I don't know about? > >I suppose this is great news. But to me it's more shocking than >anything else. > >Arnt >_______________________________________________ >imap5 mailing list >imap5@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 13:02:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DAB21F883A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:02:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.988, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LOOK=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GiVIwLS77dQO for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CDB21F8838 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019057510@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:02:27 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Adrien W. de Croy" , "Arnt Gulbrandsen" , "imap5@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:02:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 20:02:30 -0000 I just re-read the draft, and double-checked our implementation. appears I have a fair amount of egg on my face, apologies to all. 51439 1574952 2/06/2012 8:00:12.781 219.89.218.74 Adrien W. de Croy IMAP4 Server 2032 11893 Debug 0 C=3D>: 10 uid move 657428,657449 "Trash"= 51440 1574953 2/06/2012 8:00:12.812 219.89.218.74 Adrien W. de Croy IMAP4 Server 2032 11893 Debug 0 <=3DS: * 1789 EXPUNGE 51441 1574954 2/06/2012 8:00:12.812 219.89.218.74 Adrien W. de Croy IMAP4 Server 2032 11893 Debug 0 <=3DS: * 1789 EXPUNGE 51443 1574956 2/06/2012 8:00:12.859 219.89.218.74 Adrien W. de Croy IMAP4 Server 2032 11893 Debug 0 <=3DS: 10 OK [COPYUID 1333493640 657428,657449 7758:7759] command completed It does clearly state EXPUNGE is required, and it even looks like we implemented it that way. Sorry all I should have double checked. I don't know where I got the idea they were suppressed from (inspection of code which obviously I got wrong). Regards Adrien ---- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ ------ Original Message ------ From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" ;"imap5@ietf.org" Sent: 2/06/2012 7:47:49 a.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >our implementation of MOVE is over a year old > >there's a previous draft. >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krecicki-imap-move > >---- >Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com >WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ > > > >------ Original Message ------ >From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" >To: "imap5@ietf.org" >Sent: 2/06/2012 12:26:32 a.m. >Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned >during UID MOVE? >>I'm shocked. The -00 draft is only two months old, and there are >>already implementations that I don't know about? >>I suppose this is great news. But to me it's more shocking than >>anything else. >>Arnt _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing >>list imap5@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 > >_______________________________________________ >imap5 mailing list >imap5@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 14:52:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBF311E80E2 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZDV0OeAEu5K for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E1511E80BC for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28B820F60; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:51:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=iSGT+ElhxJbUHG+hbBre9XVL 1ww=; b=HIt70rAcmuoaKzi4KNdoXsj5s/6clTP9UQiLAfrxrekrmb5wA7htiEB1 8LM87HVv4y/FF8SO6n3TGJ6zjSwHvc3XAUr0zMXkEq7PzDoCkqL058SF28kin22L OD2dnP5LIjsNfYNEA13lCaCrGdsIOHYN74lhSCFrgnb1GbsYkMY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=iSGT+ElhxJbUHG+hbBre9XVL1ww=; b=i/MMgqnKCChCPr6kXMJmB6SgpGig 8vAzK8/dP8OJUKxM2UwcarRPLkGGcZZPq0HzPv5D7cTXqSJg554lu73M2Kd0H4E7 jK48u14g1hUGOcospqQjc9MsDypbENT9Vbl2BKgxoyeh4CP1T5zgOdoAHwPb856u +KuyBISpyF3bEEc= X-Sasl-enc: 1jQhRbttEqiiekog9jOJNMetFlsyxrybaGCldfHVWaMm 1338587519 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6F76E8E01E6; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CAA857E00BC; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:51:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:51:59 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: "Adrien W. de Croy" Message-ID: <20120601215159.GC32437@launde.brong.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" , Arnt Gulbrandsen Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:52:02 -0000 On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:02:31PM +0000, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > It does clearly state EXPUNGE is required, and it even looks like > we implemented it that way. I'm just going to double check mine as well: . fetch 1:* uid * 1 FETCH (UID 322) * 2 FETCH (UID 332) * 3 FETCH (UID 333) * 4 FETCH (UID 334) * 5 FETCH (UID 336) * 6 FETCH (UID 338) * 7 FETCH (UID 340) * 8 FETCH (UID 341) * 9 FETCH (UID 342) * 10 FETCH (UID 343) * 11 FETCH (UID 344) * 12 FETCH (UID 345) * 13 FETCH (UID 346) * 14 FETCH (UID 347) . OK Completed (0.000 sec) . xmove 1:2 inbox.sub * 1 EXPUNGE * 1 EXPUNGE . OK [COPYUID 1338587236 322,332 1:2] Completed . uid xmove 340 inbox.sub * 5 EXPUNGE . OK [COPYUID 1338587236 340 3] Completed . enable qresync * ENABLED CONDSTORE QRESYNC . OK Completed . xmove 1:* inbox.sub * VANISHED 333:334,336,338,341:347 . OK [COPYUID 1338587236 333:334,336,338,341:347 4:14] Completed Looks like it supports both with and without UID. I would argue that since MOVE implies COPY + STORE + EXPUNGE, then using the non-UID version of MOVE implies that you have to follow the pipelining rules as if you had issued that COPY, that STORE and that EXPUNGE. Which means you can't pipeline multiple non-UID moves, because the EXPUNGE command can't be pipelined with other actions until it's been completed. I'll go back and respond to that particular point in fact. Bron. From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 15:14:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26BA11E80E2 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7evWtofFyxj for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A959A11E80C0 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4E521297; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:14:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=vrCkzJjVI7LntHXCipnE64eQimc=; b=ooM6f7ig4tUO/R3bmXIhI+NuvBth HMJLk12K09u4OK0jm5v/aji1diUxy6T4z3DQVLeaTMJ/wY6Q6UtUjp9t0n51Tr0T 1KGHz0562iwgDWmqAWY+wVQD9kJvZY1bgZMeazXviRgHEnFw6RFtGdj040wjMVTN 2N2fOSRo4vebaxw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=vrCkzJjVI7LntHXCipnE64eQimc=; b=RBpl p8AwDPvVznKziH9AjUynomjTzRq7xIh4yNXj9UcjSdeX41Srk5vYvdBTPHOEfX3J lFBi3dLdYBvzdBvnL7xKQjWfRufHV7mUpL1nYhoesfGL369lS/gjEFRdr3SuqP4x PBhZ0CUTl4cxiZr+xqXs/NFk+zohr98bcrIg3wQ= X-Sasl-enc: QNCWdMFUCJGoYM0gk7Xm2IR23IN+XObF6oIfBprriUBp 1338588848 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E41FF8E01B6; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:14:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64FB77E00BC; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:14:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:14:09 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Cyrus Daboo Message-ID: <20120601221409.GA598@launde.brong.net> References: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] Comments on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-01 X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:14:10 -0000 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:20:12AM -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > - §2: what is the problem with sequence MOVE and EXPUNGE? For what > it is worth Mulberry has always preferred sequence over uids when > online (it uses UID commands when doing disconnected play back). > That said, mapping to uids is no big deal (and should not be a big > deal for any other client that might use sequence in normal > operation). Yeah, I don't see a problem either. I see that my implementation supports both just fine. Sequence based moves are handy when you're fiddling around by hand, if nothing else. > - §3, ¶4: states that \Deleted must not be set in the target > mailbox. But what if the messages being moved already had \Deleted > set prior to the move? Shouldn't we just state that the > flag/keywords prior to the move must be set on the messages in the > target mailbox? That's a really good catch. Agree with your interpretation absolutely. Should be copied with exactly the same flags. The only potentially sticking point here is awful things like non-shared \Seen state. Cyrus (the IMAP server, yay for namespaces) has per-user seen state. The actual behaviour at the moment would be that the owners' \Seen state always gets copied, nobody else's does. It might also make sense to copy your OWN \Seen state if you are not the owner. But basically it's fluff wording. The final result shall be as if COPY + STORE + UID EXPUNGE had happened in precisely that order. In other words "the messages in the destination mailbox must not show any state that would not have happened if COPY had been used instead of MOVE". The only difference between COPY and MOVE is the eventual state of the source folder. > - §3: As already mentioned, EXPUNGE responses need to be present. > Might be worth pointing out that there could be a * EXPUNGE for a > message not being moved, but which got expunged in another session. > Actually, more complicated is the case where a message being moved > was expunged in another session - presumably that message is not > moved? Yet it would get reported in a * EXPUNGE, but not be part of > the COPYUID set. There's no other choice here. The only rule is that the STORE and UID EXPUNGE only happen to the messages which were successfully copied. Which leads to this interesting little thing. Two sessions, S1 and S2. S1: SELECT AFolder S2: SELECT AFolder S1: STORE 3 +Flags \Deleted S2: MOVE 1:5 OtherFolder S1: EXPUNGE S1 will see 5 expunges, including the one it was expecting. S2 will see the 5 expunged it was expecting as well - but will store the message as \Deleted in OtherFolder. I wonder indeed if that was an intention in the spec, that \Deleted gets explicitly CLEARED by the MOVE operation. Which is kind of surprising actually. Hmm, I wonder. Yep - COPY copies messages with \Deleted and they have \Deleted in the destination folder as well. OK - I take it back, this isn't surprising. This is the natural way it should be. Yes, S1's expunge missed the mark - but that's the unfortunately downside of two-stage EXPUNGE. There is literally no way to avoid this... whenever you do a COPY or MOVE you need to check your destination messages to make sure you didn't pick up something half way through being deleted. Even S1 doing UID EXPUNGE wouldn't avoid this. BUT - even if there are other \Deleted messages in the folder, the "EXPUNGE" part of MOVE never deletes them. It's a "UID EXPUNGE" on just the UIDs which were actually affected by this message. Which also gives it the dubious honour of including "ERASE". "ERASE" of course being just the "STORE" and "UID EXPUNGE" parts of the above command combined together atomically(ish) such that you don't get the race condition listed above. In fact it would be atomic in Cyrus. I think I'm going to implement this one now in fact, we would use it immediately. Er, I'm going to write a separate email for it too. > - §4: whilst no one may implement it, there still ought to be a > reference to the interaction with ANNOTATE. ANNOTATE §4.6 has > detailed text on the interaction with COPY and something similar is > needed for MOVE. "As Above" ;) Literally, it should be enough to say "ANNOTATions are treated exactly as specified for COPY and for EXPUNGE". From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 15:23:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFF111E809A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tQ7HDFTuat4z for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E966E11E8097 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D52120F61; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:23:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= mesmtp; bh=QINoGN1LZOu/Ndfa2VvWDK8BLao=; b=lQxjdZKCMznbTnHEdqcyB Q4ZV/NhfHdEpmefGIMuw9s+Dg5QkgVDHvoHPSHHFLuEPk5oAz+4yx/F56cvLEKiH L8u5B0J6gdt4iGsVcYm4vJOXNJsLZlmBeXAT9aJquTJgfJyYBndVimF/EHdiSwU6 ao2lLEOOhz9rf0vk0NTk8c= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=QINoGN1LZOu/Ndfa2VvWDK 8BLao=; b=b5iXBRni33g81mPNvSJ5//rRLBBm9UvI0QURFK3vYr7j02snADI+ZV 1RNeQh0q40RrSw0M5SWmOHqduI3E+TbVy9yl6B1A5GhElbxYZ23bqQnegfyQKCeK NoSk9VKP4Tz9cZt1VA1mJ5I1BfmiLRF2BOaUVtY4Up9ZC3Uw2pCq8= X-Sasl-enc: WPUMkK2Po6wm/CrMv17Wg9HI5mmusOnwrSY84kPo8rnO 1338589391 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 570748E020C; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9980D7E00BC; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:23:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:23:11 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: imap5@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen Subject: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:23:12 -0000 While looking over Cyrus's excellent review of the MOVE draft it struck me that MOVE actually has another command hidden inside its definition. MOVE is defined as COPY + STORE + "UID EXPUNGE". But it would be very useful to have the second half of that available as a separate command in its own right, "ERASE" (I would say DELETE, but that's already stolen by a different namespace) This probably shits the purists as much as anything else. But I can tell you for sure that the FastMail web interface does its "Delete Permanently" as: $Res = $Self->store($Uids, "+flags", "(\\seen \\deleted)") && $Self->uidexpunge($Uids) && $Self->refresh_count(''); Which is an extra roundtrip to the server and an extra lock and parse of the mailbox index. If this was implemented as: $Res = $Self->erase($Uids) && $Self->refresh_count(''); It would make everything more efficient. And we wouldn't have to touch the \Seen flag just in case the intermediate step failed. So Arnt, does it make sense to either propose both commands as part of this draft and implement one in terms of the other, or to do an ERASE first and then a separate MOVE referencing ERASE? Bron. From tss@iki.fi Fri Jun 1 15:23:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD3111E80F7 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJR5Wc8lETKb for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164BD11E8097 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.101] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577111AE882E; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:23:30 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: <20120601221409.GA598@launde.brong.net> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:23:30 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9A56D413-FC08-468E-AC52-D32DD523C67D@iki.fi> References: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> <20120601221409.GA598@launde.brong.net> To: Bron Gondwana X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." Subject: Re: [imap5] Comments on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-01 X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:23:32 -0000 On 2.6.2012, at 1.14, Bron Gondwana wrote: > The only potentially sticking point here is awful things like > non-shared \Seen state. Cyrus (the IMAP server, yay for namespaces) > has per-user seen state. The actual behaviour at the moment would > be that the owners' \Seen state always gets copied, nobody else's > does. It might also make sense to copy your OWN \Seen state if you > are not the owner. The owner's \Seen state gets copied with COPY to your private mailbox? I = think that might be considered a minor security/privacy leak, since it = allows other users to see when the owner has read the message. From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 15:26:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B44C11E810C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:26:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gRezfayRcCsZ for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2CB11E8081 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9B220BC6; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:26:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=gHbfiONx87MZYrg/tJlRTjaH8KU=; b=e3l6Wfp3CJU+jn7JxEPGrzWXoo/t YX59qp/S9Y/+d7BN73s836LTiX0jO9OlCKycNgZVIH6ia9YivP0kjXYdULXpoMM7 Va6WKWJcw74969hqvrS8yQyLNii6HYXVCncfBXbYYmKddJd8q6R3QIVPWQt1Z6CA /KOgSVm8MgLcBbM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=gHbfiONx87MZYrg/tJlRTjaH8KU=; b=XjGw Ect4kTu0eTHFV+GOwgvH/41w47qVAVFpbv6+jRqhzF1pMRdb1sz2+/Rb3bENyfAJ 4voCEMCKUp0pLT9w+GpHHaq9uvZwmjzNG50WggU+UTialw5Zix1tvVpIuiUOAHC+ ij8rIAH9RnGptrHFUePv3KZskMoOu4+mdCxqlx4= X-Sasl-enc: w6d5j2Eniaq+aislYEqkaLy7FjLLyHE1/QyhBCz1Ik2U 1338589618 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 377BA483601; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A8BEA7E00BC; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:26:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:26:58 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Jan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kundr=E1t?= Message-ID: <20120601222658.GC598@launde.brong.net> References: <1338453779.23343.140661083095925.4E6CADFD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4FC73CD8.2060009@flaska.net> <1338457927.4384.183.camel@innu> <4FC743D7.1010603@flaska.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4FC743D7.1010603@flaska.net> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:26:59 -0000 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:11:35PM +0200, Jan Kundrát wrote: > On 05/31/12 11:52, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > Another possibility: > > C: a UID MOVE 42:45 forble > > S: * OK [COPYUID 432432 1202:1205] Messages moved > > S: * 15 EXPUNGE > > S: * 15 EXPUNGE > > S: * 15 EXPUNGE > > S: * 15 EXPUNGE > > S: a OK Done > > The untagged OK with COPYUID doesn't specify to which UID MOVE it is > related, unfortunately, and will therefore break with concurrent UID > MOVE operations. My GUI will happily send concurrent UID MOVEs when the > connection is slow and user moves her mouse fast enough, so I believe > it's a real problem. Huh? Who sends untagged COPYUID responses? Cyrus puts the COPYUID in the tagged OK. The docs back me up: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2359.html 4.3. COPYUID response code Successful COPY and UID COPY commands return a COPYUID response code in the tagged OK response [...] Bron. From tss@iki.fi Fri Jun 1 15:28:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3358711E810C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kcRNScMfvkJV for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6AA11E8081 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.101] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDD71AE87C5; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:27:58 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:27:58 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <41D94689-2BBA-4E74-B6AE-CD6C75918A11@iki.fi> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> To: Bron Gondwana X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:28:00 -0000 On 2.6.2012, at 1.23, Bron Gondwana wrote: > This probably shits the purists as much as anything else. > But I can tell you for sure that the FastMail web interface > does its "Delete Permanently" as:=20 >=20 > $Res =3D $Self->store($Uids, "+flags", "(\\seen \\deleted)") > && $Self->uidexpunge($Uids) > && $Self->refresh_count(''); >=20 > Which is an extra roundtrip to the server and an extra lock and > parse of the mailbox index. It doesn't need to be an extra roundtrip. You can run uidexpunge even if = store fails and it doesn't do anything bad. By avoiding the extra = roundtrip it is possible for the server to optimize the STORE+EXPUNGE = into equivalent of ERASE. (Dovecot does halfway that - it for example = doesn't rename maildir files on STORE stage, just unlinks them on = EXPUNGE.) From jkt@flaska.net Fri Jun 1 15:54:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C21B11E809A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:54:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZzDzTuwaXyAI for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serv132.fzu.cz (serv132.fzu.cz [147.231.26.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A16D11E808D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAKNHyU+T5xpZ/2dsb2JhbABFhU6udoEHghgBAQUjZgsYCRMOAgIPAkYTCAEBBYgCBAelOZJDiymCYIIEgRIDjjaBHYVGgQ+OZoJigV0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,700,1330902000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="6079013" Received: from freja.fzu.cz ([147.231.26.89]) by serv147.fzu.cz with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 00:54:12 +0200 Received: from svist.flaska.net (nat-1n-33-212.suchdol.net [82.208.33.212]) by freja.fzu.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB5363DA82 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FC9480C.50101@flaska.net> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:54:04 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIEt1bmRyw6F0?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <1338453779.23343.140661083095925.4E6CADFD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4FC73CD8.2060009@flaska.net> <1338457927.4384.183.camel@innu> <4FC743D7.1010603@flaska.net> <20120601222658.GC598@launde.brong.net> In-Reply-To: <20120601222658.GC598@launde.brong.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig2E6EEBD25D183419AB6D90C2" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:54:28 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig2E6EEBD25D183419AB6D90C2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/02/12 00:26, Bron Gondwana wrote: > Huh? Who sends untagged COPYUID responses? Cyrus puts the COPYUID > in the tagged OK. The docs back me up: >=20 > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2359.html >=20 > 4.3. COPYUID response code >=20 > Successful COPY and UID COPY commands return a COPYUID response code= > in the tagged OK response [...] When my client sees an EXPUNGE, it removes the message from its cache, almost immediately. If the UID MOVE command sent regular EXPUNGEs followed by regular tagged OK COPYUID, my client would have lost the cached data, effectively negating any benefits of UIDPLUS. Either you postpone the EXPUNGEs until the tagged OK with COPYUID arrives (which looks very un-IMAPy to me), or you somehow report the COPYUID before the untagged EXpUNGEs *and* the tagged OK gets sent. With kind regards, Jan --=20 Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/ --------------enig2E6EEBD25D183419AB6D90C2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/JSAwACgkQamXfqERyJRfvXQCeNKTg+/9L9pbrl9UlaPKQgXU8 1eMAmgNdlcTnqK/Wr8RZDgsziJ5Flkv9 =o+GM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig2E6EEBD25D183419AB6D90C2-- From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 15:59:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3150C11E809A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:59:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57urwrF3wfzD for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5E711E808D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019057737@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:59:12 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: =?utf-8?q?Jan=20Kundr=c3=a1t?= , "imap5@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:59:04 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB42BE2BF9-A76F-41F1-B46B-4A45979734C9" In-Reply-To: <4FC9480C.50101@flaska.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:59:15 -0000 --------=_MB42BE2BF9-A76F-41F1-B46B-4A45979734C9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Jan Kundr=C3=A1t" To: "imap5@ietf.org" Sent: 2/06/2012 10:54:04 a.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >On 06/02/12 00:26, Bron Gondwana wrote: > >> >>Huh? Who sends untagged COPYUID responses? Cyrus puts the COPYUID >>in the tagged OK. The docs back me up: >> >> >>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2359.html >> >> >>4.3. COPYUID response code >> >> Successful COPY and UID COPY commands return a COPYUID response code= >> in the tagged OK response [...] >> > > >When my client sees an EXPUNGE, it removes the message from its cache, >almost immediately. If the UID MOVE command sent regular EXPUNGEs >followed by regular tagged OK COPYUID, my client would have lost the >cached data, effectively negating any benefits of UIDPLUS. > >Either you postpone the EXPUNGEs until the tagged OK with COPYUID >arrives (which looks very un-IMAPy to me), or you somehow report the >COPYUID before the untagged EXpUNGEs *and* the tagged OK gets sent. > Or, your client could - knowing it is in a MOVE command - defer the processing of those expunges, or actually probably ignore them, since the information required is in the COPYUID response (tells you which messages were moved and are therefore gone from source folder). Maybe we should make MOVE depend on existence of UIDPLUS... What do other clients do here? Adrien > > >With kind regards, >Jan > >-- >Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- >http://trojita.flaska.net/ > --------=_MB42BE2BF9-A76F-41F1-B46B-4A45979734C9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 =
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jan = Kundr=C3=A1t" <jkt@flaska.net>
To: "imap5@ietf.org" <imap5@ietf= .org>
Sent: 2/06/2012 10:54:04 a.m.
Subject: Re: [imap5] Should un= solicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE?
= 
On 06/02/12 00:26, Bron Gondwana wrote:


Huh?  Who sends untagged COPYUID responses?  Cyrus puts the COPYUID
in the tagged OK.  The docs back me up:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2359.html

4.3. COPYUID response code

   Successful COPY and UID COPY commands return a COPYUID re=
sponse code
   in the tagged OK response [...]



When my client sees an EXPUNGE, it removes the message from its cache,
almost immediately. If the UID MOVE command sent regular EXPUNGEs
followed by regular tagged OK COPYUID, my client would have lost the
cached data, effectively negating any benefits of UIDPLUS.

Either you postpone the EXPUNGEs until the tagged OK with COPYUID
arrives (which looks very un-IMAPy to me), or you somehow report the
COPYUID before the untagged EXpUNGEs *and* the tagged OK gets sent.
 
Or, your client could - knowing it is= in a MOVE command - defer the processing of those expunges, or actually pr= obably ignore them, since the information required is in the COPYUID respon= se (tells you which messages were moved and are therefore gone from source = folder).
 
Maybe we should make MOVE depend on e= xistence of UIDPLUS...
 
What do other clients do here?
=
 
Adrien
= 

With kind regards,
Jan

-- 
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
--------=_MB42BE2BF9-A76F-41F1-B46B-4A45979734C9-- From tss@iki.fi Fri Jun 1 16:06:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC6A11E8117 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1vZBovtXLCk3 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC0A11E808D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.101] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7801AE87C6; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:06:12 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:06:06 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <58C05CF0-4986-4C47-8B8E-2F9D352176E2@iki.fi> References: To: "Adrien W. de Croy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:06:14 -0000 On 2.6.2012, at 1.59, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: >> When my client sees an EXPUNGE, it removes the message from its = cache, >> almost immediately. If the UID MOVE command sent regular EXPUNGEs >> followed by regular tagged OK COPYUID, my client would have lost the >> cached data, effectively negating any benefits of UIDPLUS. >>=20 >> Either you postpone the EXPUNGEs until the tagged OK with COPYUID >> arrives (which looks very un-IMAPy to me), or you somehow report the >> COPYUID before the untagged EXpUNGEs *and* the tagged OK gets sent. > =20 > Or, your client could - knowing it is in a MOVE command - defer the = processing of those expunges, or actually probably ignore them, since = the information required is in the COPYUID response (tells you which = messages were moved and are therefore gone from source folder). That's possible of course, but also pretty kludgy. IMAP in general = doesn't require clients to do such things. And anyway it shouldn't ignore them entirely, because there might be = other EXPUNGEs reported that didn't come from a MOVE. From adrien@qbik.com Fri Jun 1 16:19:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E498211E8111 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWqvURrr3LSz for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4B211E808D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [219.89.218.74]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.2.2 (Build 3416)) with SMTP id <0019057756@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:19:10 +1200 From: "Adrien W. de Croy" To: "Timo Sirainen" Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:19:10 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <58C05CF0-4986-4C47-8B8E-2F9D352176E2@iki.fi> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: eM_Client/4.0.14522.0 Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:19:13 -0000 =EF=BB=BF ------ Original Message ------ From: "Timo Sirainen" To: "Adrien W. de Croy" Cc: "Jan Kundr=C3=A1t" ;"imap5@ietf.org" = Sent: 2/06/2012 11:06:06 a.m. Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? >On 2.6.2012, at 1.59, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > > >>> >>>When my client sees an EXPUNGE, it removes the message from its cache,= >>>almost immediately. If the UID MOVE command sent regular EXPUNGEs >>>followed by regular tagged OK COPYUID, my client would have lost the >>>cached data, effectively negating any benefits of UIDPLUS. >>> >>>Either you postpone the EXPUNGEs until the tagged OK with COPYUID >>>arrives (which looks very un-IMAPy to me), or you somehow report the >>>COPYUID before the untagged EXpUNGEs *and* the tagged OK gets sent. >>> >> >> >>Or, your client could - knowing it is in a MOVE command - defer the proce= ssing of those expunges, or actually probably ignore them, since the inform= ation required is in the COPYUID response (tells you which messages were mo= ved and are therefore gone from source folder). >> > > >That's possible of course, but also pretty kludgy. IMAP in general doesn't= require clients to do such things. > The flip-side to that is that implementation design decisions shouldn't = necessarily force the protocol. Other clients don't have this problem, so can you blame the protocol. > > >And anyway it shouldn't ignore them entirely, because there might be other= EXPUNGEs reported that didn't come from a MOVE. > > > Not sure that's possible/legal. I don't think a server is allowed to send unsolicited EXPUNGE responses whilst in another command. Adrien > From tss@iki.fi Fri Jun 1 16:25:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D2611E808D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxAXaRM5F5JN for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEBB11E8081 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.101] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0A51AE87C6; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:25:47 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:25:46 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4ADC6690-A09C-4141-B346-544BC207E6CD@iki.fi> References: To: "Adrien W. de Croy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "imap5@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:25:48 -0000 On 2.6.2012, at 2.19, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: >> That's possible of course, but also pretty kludgy. IMAP in general = doesn't require clients to do such things. > The flip-side to that is that implementation design decisions = shouldn't necessarily force the protocol. > Other clients don't have this problem, so can you blame the protocol. I am talking about the protocol, not the client implementation. The = protocol should try to behave predictably and without special exceptions = as much as possible. Jan's client behaves the way an "ideal IMAP client" = would behave. Saying "other IMAP clients don't have this problem" = doesn't matter, because pretty much all IMAP clients behave badly or = horribly badly. The protocol shouldn't be designed for those. >> And anyway it shouldn't ignore them entirely, because there might be = other EXPUNGEs reported that didn't come from a MOVE. >>=20 > Not sure that's possible/legal. I don't think a server is allowed to = send unsolicited EXPUNGE responses whilst in another command. It depends on the command. The way UID MOVE is currently defined it is = possible for other EXPUNGEs to be sent. (And I think it should stay that = way, otherwise it would be an exception to how the protocol normally = behaves. Exceptions are bad.) From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Jun 1 18:55:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3188F21F8857 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:55:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.005 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GpoDFhKhMp1n for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:55:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C8721F85E5 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so2093415lag.31 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:54:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B5CwJLCW2J+/tPYrlF6eGNv7k9sbv4Q/1N1w3nsF+Qk=; b=SN59U+UfMc73rEK077v9Qcoxohzaz6leYVtR0Cy6XRa2+oCZ9EJjHmuPnYWmv2U60h h8sTk2VTd+0CkRgFHsB75k6+9CR5gIhUql0lHn/T/zmHkaIz55wQRR/XH4bt8VXnFkic F9sGliyH7QErfPdOA/nSNtc5jP5rbPRyDCRli73nZ8F1bFf/zGLwUkim2DLz7wlzWpIb tVwFMIrej/dYmq7faCz2aWqH18LDjN1TvbLqUR8ndY1sVCVP9/iX26ylrufW0RT70bC1 HRYxiC3lmG9Hxu5fw+sGB15b0njfBWG4m+PiOzdtP/ak/5VOTOhe+KOOprybuURPMwQ2 3yOw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.113.199 with SMTP id ja7mr5089660lab.10.1338602094554; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.48.104 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:54:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:54:54 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hirq7OABzqm6hbbHg_QBMkkqvDQ Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Bron Gondwana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:55:27 -0000 > But it would be very useful to have the second half of that > available as a separate command in its own right, "ERASE" ... > So Arnt, does it make sense to either propose both commands as > part of this draft and implement one in terms of the other, or > to do an ERASE first and then a separate MOVE referencing ERASE? As Timo says, you can pipeline the STORE and UID EXPUNGE. Unless you can come up with some reason that an atomic ERASE command would save something significant in the message store -- something I can't imagine to be the case -- there's nowhere near the use for this as there is for MOVE (where it's not just the round trips that are saved, because it allows message-store optimization in some cases). But more to the point: you'll note that the proposed charter is VERY tight on this, and will not be changed... there is exactly ONE thing chartered here, and an ERASE command is not it. This is quite intentional, to head off tangents and feature creep, and to keep us to the thing that's being demanded by, we're told, a significant number of implementors. Please do not try to add anything more to this very tightly focused effort. Barry, Applications AD From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Jun 1 19:09:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38DA911E80BB for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTjQnW6oPUza for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0AA11E809D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2244278lbb.31 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=HnZdE+XAhv7kPD4JfNJwTpRVYwcj8WEhFxnFvug94d8=; b=Qa39hyLl0lXE6qQx/SauyFWvIoYwK/fMGvJi3md69m1+wT1RDgSGyb9iQ8d2bw8lus 9k2Ib80IODtYvoBlZCd5eda/sffEo2DQH9nQtfqdD10+3cbor7b0vzyODUfN8wj2xnbd QeySd7MbkHfUaHoM3pm69029dvT3+HdzQg3o4g0Byh+4aXoLOucWDWKeQaRllh0BO8px sW4g1kb1LAKvaqktnWqNdh+4AYo8feBjCz1ynehgdAsyoqg537tuPapjUXkFKfE3Szao Mw9TNOpLfGTFP7HKhdbxbkaaLBxFm+W2Q3NQ2UaDb0vljhWgb8UBZjnC/K52ta5+cjLh NoqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.10.198 with SMTP id k6mr2818600lbb.83.1338602949735; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.48.104 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:09:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ap5hULLcC--5her7bmjC-CoLpkI Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: imap5@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [imap5] IMAPMOVE: a word about the mailing list X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:09:12 -0000 After batting around all the options, here's what we've decided to do (following Cyrus's suggestion): As you probably all know, there is an existing mailing list at imc.org, called ietf-imapext;[1] it was used for the (long closed) imapext working group.[2] The IESG now strongly prefers to have working group mailing lists at ietf.org, and Paul Hoffman would like to retire the IETF-related mailing lists that are at imc.org. I have, therefore, requested the creation of imapext@ietf.org, and have asked that the subscriptions (and, if possible, the archive) be moved over from the imc.org list. So, if you are subscribed to ietf-imapext@imc.org, you will automatically be subscribed to imapext@ietf.org. We will use that list for this working group, and the next iteration of the proposed charter will reflect that. (As a side note, I have also requested the creation of several other non-working-group mailing lists, such as ietf-822 and ietf-smtp, to similarly move over from imc.org.) (As another side note, if it's not feasible to move the archives to the new home at ietf.org, Paul will leave the archives open at imc.org. Nothing will be lost.) Barry, Applications AD [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/ [2] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/imapext/ From tony@att.com Fri Jun 1 20:54:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A6111E808C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.171 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5y99ERE4NTL for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F13811E80E9 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 06e89cf4.0.99280.00-477.275969.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:54:09 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fc98e61505581b4-a873c8b5a3864076cefacb96e5e24c77814df869 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q523s82u007291 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:08 -0700 Received: from fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (fflint03.pst.cso.att.com [150.234.39.63]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q523s5fo007271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:54:07 -0700 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by fflint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:53:48 -0700 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q523rlxA022064 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:53:47 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q523re9a021997 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:53:41 -0400 Received: from [135.70.237.48] (vpn-135-70-237-48.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.237.48]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120602034957gw10060lv1e> (Authid: tony); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:49:58 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.237.48] Message-ID: <4FC98E43.50200@att.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:53:39 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=BqUrhBqEnCcA:10 a=4JAii899aesA:10 a=zmm3u9S4FS] X-AnalysisOut: [UA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:1] X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=L6IORkp] X-AnalysisOut: [KAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=JyLgO_d-XKnfhbmHF7kA:9 a=wPNLvf] X-AnalysisOut: [GTeEIA:10 a=p25YDwzVhg4A:10 a=kkUMZHjH4KkA:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=VHY5CwHZxh8A:10] Cc: imap5@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman / VPNC Subject: Re: [imap5] IMAPMOVE: a word about the mailing list X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:54:10 -0000 I'd like to also publicly thank Paul for his hosting these groups over these many years. (I still remember fondly the imap interops we had that IMC hosted. Fun times. :-) ) Tony Hansen tony@att.com On 6/1/2012 10:09 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > After batting around all the options, here's what we've decided to do > (following Cyrus's suggestion): > > As you probably all know, there is an existing mailing list at > imc.org, called ietf-imapext;[1] it was used for the (long closed) > imapext working group.[2] > > The IESG now strongly prefers to have working group mailing lists at > ietf.org, and Paul Hoffman would like to retire the IETF-related > mailing lists that are at imc.org. > > I have, therefore, requested the creation of imapext@ietf.org, and > have asked that the subscriptions (and, if possible, the archive) be > moved over from the imc.org list. So, if you are subscribed to > ietf-imapext@imc.org, you will automatically be subscribed to > imapext@ietf.org. We will use that list for this working group, and > the next iteration of the proposed charter will reflect that. > > (As a side note, I have also requested the creation of several other > non-working-group mailing lists, such as ietf-822 and ietf-smtp, to > similarly move over from imc.org.) > (As another side note, if it's not feasible to move the archives to > the new home at ietf.org, Paul will leave the archives open at > imc.org. Nothing will be lost.) > > Barry, Applications AD > > [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/ > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/imapext/ > _______________________________________________ > imap5 mailing list > imap5@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5 From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 21:05:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B5611E80B8 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:05:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bNGePMoc-x3k for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D84111E8081 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A40210C0; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:05:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=bCNWZcRy5mUgBCZ1TSPpquC5 sZ8=; b=VK5ByKFcNpqMXJSUIVzfNl7G72aAhPjUJ1bf7cm2MeDibew2LZ9+0nmP xLKtawIuvZCM4NoKZzH6NkMYYo0MT5ZgD0dJQxb7c5Gu/c6X5Ggd4NBq/qTsHgiA rTmcfAi/ZpxXw1BxWlQDjboxxYDW+qkAscggN9gpNSQfM6DbNaI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=bCNWZcRy5mUgBCZ1TSPpquC5sZ8=; b=iL75sr38NuLlor1rE8FGmVxYVbIj yhYhLYpy7O7T69+eWyl06yw7JbMMWwUv7ZUU2x49sX/nyiNWu0wyjQtc2EVXjIwV QvFj6HeCKFBfU5p8Mig1YNF1BUZkKUTRkDnZkq0pgtO2D5LoANmVK8q4pMNjEgA7 5dC3ARrlAiQxwS0= X-Sasl-enc: MmltbSceb7nNakeIQ3tXQsU4w1zrLQW/n3Mo0cH9N1vq 1338609941 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 03E0B8E012F; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8F0AC7E00BD; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:05:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:05:41 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Timo Sirainen Message-ID: <20120602040541.GA2654@launde.brong.net> References: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> <20120601221409.GA598@launde.brong.net> <9A56D413-FC08-468E-AC52-D32DD523C67D@iki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9A56D413-FC08-468E-AC52-D32DD523C67D@iki.fi> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." Subject: Re: [imap5] Comments on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-01 X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:05:42 -0000 On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:23:30AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 2.6.2012, at 1.14, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > The only potentially sticking point here is awful things like > > non-shared \Seen state. Cyrus (the IMAP server, yay for namespaces) > > has per-user seen state. The actual behaviour at the moment would > > be that the owners' \Seen state always gets copied, nobody else's > > does. It might also make sense to copy your OWN \Seen state if you > > are not the owner. > > The owner's \Seen state gets copied with COPY to your private mailbox? I think that might be considered a minor security/privacy leak, since it allows other users to see when the owner has read the message. Oh, it gets stripped if you can't see it - same as everything else. Bron. From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 21:12:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DB221F889A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BS9K3rjgdDcL for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1568B21F8895 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC2C20D69; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:12:21 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=ws7rSEWamvltyQslD3pNdBYq JOw=; b=OyUdZ0GNzDN22Bk32dz66wxXjbua/AwVAOSPNSkCqKBWt+affbPyU40y RXq3S/PutPZW1c4o0rK8lPw5uxSNsJHX9UbD6JssZ9O6DpboqlJYkN/8j28VF6be wmeOXkps+JIIxaJSW7BShCy2OX8VmDLvGP8Ic0l4EL+qneGMFzw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=ws7rSEWamvltyQslD3pNdBYqJOw=; b=EZf/DQIUFnuzz22vp8C5/db6yhSP dE77ZUnp3npqe09YnEYYmk1AvEuFSbXQkqSVSqZdNKuYIyizyOsLw0tUnDXgL4bJ gPYsy+62ajW5VE9GivrDRHSVr73QOKmmRCrAVN9WF0ytvqKLBtWxuHg8Ihgl2gCE Nus3C110Lm4qIqA= X-Sasl-enc: ovw66/M8ERbZGujDiLiz5gDziFTW8G5e+kFR1Owxix81 1338610341 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 73A5A8E012F; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC4A17E00BD; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:12:21 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: <20120602041221.GB2654@launde.brong.net> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:12:23 -0000 On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:54:54PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > But more to the point: you'll note that the proposed charter is VERY > tight on this, and will not be changed... there is exactly ONE thing > chartered here, and an ERASE command is not it. This is quite > intentional, to head off tangents and feature creep, and to keep us to > the thing that's being demanded by, we're told, a significant number > of implementors. It just happens to include an ERASE command. > Please do not try to add anything more to this very tightly focused effort. Fair enough. I'm sure there's a good reason for being this hard-assed about not changing things. It's hardly the first time MOVE has been suggested, and somehow it's managed to not make the difference every other time (which is probably why there's an incompatible AOL one already. I'm kinda suprised gmail didn't do one as well - though I guess they work around it with keyword fiddling instead if they know they're talking to their own server) I'm still going to write it locally because it's a single instruction which describes the exact intention to the server. Bron. From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 21:24:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23A321F8939 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:24:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yNdxGibbeBvk for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E21021F8936 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B7920D13; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:24:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=zPBtI9ol4KqE7iMcWvZ36bJE e0o=; b=OCgsXpO1QLnPvooSp/k/l1LqVvp+zkyvole0qc/teZ9lsG3idKwtuNkW 9VcNHZQHqMPHPlrSSDCpYzRHAWxxe97/uy90cyHXPK6KZyxaVGLbZS8dHxHMGlHw nVRSfYr7sWl8wBYahqttkzWBb3+pL/SW8Lkf97F1nFi++vh7+sc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=zPBtI9ol4KqE7iMcWvZ36bJEe0o=; b=HSAMA78v6wRoWdta/UarU9EU3TPz GQjSH/+IZNo3iD2sRfHVoB4vAN/vowf8lUtcf6crvEBQNy4HrFH5C//gGQQRaMMR icvoNrMh03kbS0WRSyZej9udp74EQk5NtY6ZLgv143MJ4HVHnKpTGVsWocIsn1H3 ugNt25hI2GqJsss= X-Sasl-enc: qaPkHxBXvyY68/I76P5XbsPCXmsUtMJFUnNrYUpbaNNu 1338611049 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6FA4E8E01B6; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EFF5D7E00BD; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:24:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:24:09 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: <20120602042409.GC2654@launde.brong.net> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:24:11 -0000 On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:54:54PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: > As Timo says, you can pipeline the STORE and UID EXPUNGE. Unless you > can come up with some reason that an atomic ERASE command would save > something significant in the message store -- something I can't > imagine to be the case -- there's nowhere near the use for this as > there is for MOVE (where it's not just the round trips that are saved, > because it allows message-store optimization in some cases). OK, a REAL atomic erase (no intermediate state - guaranteed) gives you this: S1: UID MOVE 1:* FolderA S2: UID MOVE 1:* FolderB A guarantee that at the end, the messages will be in FolderA OR FolderB, but not in both. Bron. From brong@fastmail.fm Fri Jun 1 21:27:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0911A11E80C6 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:27:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.205 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.205 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.206, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v+lZigoQcRut for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A347911E8096 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5287C21288; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 00:27:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=YQEFrf94IlwIZJiOSPFWiGw8 7HM=; b=DZZvWdB8nItlfY4YsCIbTiJgIvgyhf1k110swHmysgu58T091UaOpNz2 dg3pU4dPlyEhL7k8p4L65pxWfSpRnX6/oTVLCa+zBfzL5jLxrK/VgcNDevlZ3SKE BdOukl6sWyRgqtRbetbr+ZftNXeAXEqFHlj25LmEdjBOqOwYkPk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=YQEFrf94IlwIZJiOSPFWiGw87HM=; b=cEZ0DHtqeSEo2wZ9OrY/O1mDVF8D 7Ar51bVgQdi9Hy2GC9r5NifA2wT7tJTnuCqokhXN5NVDOVfvLWS8+F+QKIlHrLrz U8iBZMA9wS5rPF4hUMoBUjoosX49fmIbs0dz2ZGj4Awd94w9RNQFVv3bB7R4bHgN z7G3ZT40K37S1R0= X-Sasl-enc: oUeQcWbEx6eoIOfHIFYfvP0ttHUVivpJqORw1O7tK6fJ 1338611271 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0ABC58E01FC; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 89A7F7E00BD; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:27:51 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Timo Sirainen Message-ID: <20120602042751.GD2654@launde.brong.net> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> <41D94689-2BBA-4E74-B6AE-CD6C75918A11@iki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41D94689-2BBA-4E74-B6AE-CD6C75918A11@iki.fi> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen , imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:27:53 -0000 On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:27:58AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 2.6.2012, at 1.23, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > This probably shits the purists as much as anything else. > > But I can tell you for sure that the FastMail web interface > > does its "Delete Permanently" as: > > > > $Res = $Self->store($Uids, "+flags", "(\\seen \\deleted)") > > && $Self->uidexpunge($Uids) > > && $Self->refresh_count(''); > > > > Which is an extra roundtrip to the server and an extra lock and > > parse of the mailbox index. > > It doesn't need to be an extra roundtrip. You can run uidexpunge even if store fails and it doesn't do anything bad. By avoiding the extra roundtrip it is possible for the server to optimize the STORE+EXPUNGE into equivalent of ERASE. (Dovecot does halfway that - it for example doesn't rename maildir files on STORE stage, just unlinks them on EXPUNGE.) Not so easy if you want to delete the messages by sequence number of course. TAG ERASE 1:10 Isn't implementable as a pipelined command, it would have to be TAG1 STORE 1:10 +Flags \Deleted TAG2 UID EXPUNGE UID1,UID2,UID3,UID4,UID5..UID10 So how does Dovecot handle a crash or filesystem error during that intermediate stage? Replay an action log? What if the file can't be renamed, but it's already replied to a client saying "yes, your flag store succeeded"? Bron. From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Sat Jun 2 02:10:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956B321F8A07 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:10:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKBoxeXpm4qQ for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF8621F8A04 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A442F8CE59; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:10:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338628236-10044-10043/11/14; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:10:36 +0000 Message-Id: <4FC9D88A.2040206@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:10:34 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> In-Reply-To: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:10:39 -0000 Yeah, well... but MOVE is something people have been asking for and suggesting every year for at least a decade, and ERASE isn't... Arnt From brong@fastmail.fm Sat Jun 2 04:06:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEB121F8A56 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlVvo26J909P for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103BD21F8A55 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31F12093C; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:06:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=KksFHPZkIA7b0DNbWL5jCOH5 gtY=; b=DCKMdPmAC2v6LQkBTi/yOmUGvtRFxP2aDLGpTlcnI06iKRkYEVGq14Ea QxZ527c8od9t1ccmiqQ4MbxW3biHbQSJ4hcCYxqvFyW9xYsKI+yTy5IdPX8hXrEu 7x2e6UNKzcJceZzAW800NmdON/4I6k8HNs5ZmkuTKsi277qjp7Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=KksFHPZkIA7b0DNbWL5jCOH5gtY=; b=IC7BC9ajh39A4ceemtz6mW2I9Eo1 oBdNNSIGFO5HIMROMV2yJhbCpBjh45cXGg9JApwTeifaDe5JVFPX6J92V1ENJYXx NBWU+jSKqkanZl3Ne7GRd6cQqcAWLdOyP0yAAkwdKoIkiXHGkBn25Pmlm4pxPFTP brPXWQs7lPSxVcI= X-Sasl-enc: v4Oi/Dn5p4+IF2nBIZt3BcfZpfqub2tfaZyMQaK22foL 1338635205 Received: from localhost (unknown [31.45.20.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6D78C8E020E; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1AC8E7E140A; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:06:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:06:46 +0200 From: Bron Gondwana To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Message-ID: <20120602110646.GA18535@launde.brong.net> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> <4FC9D88A.2040206@gulbrandsen.priv.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FC9D88A.2040206@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Organization: brong.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:06:47 -0000 On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:10:34AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Yeah, well... but MOVE is something people have been asking for and > suggesting every year for at least a decade, and ERASE isn't... True. I'll butt out :) Bron. From tss@iki.fi Sat Jun 2 04:39:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1184321F8A64 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdNY0rzTgNK6 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C7B21F8A5E for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.101] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5F21AE876B; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:39:09 +0300 (EEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: <20120602042751.GD2654@launde.brong.net> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:39:09 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96F9DFD9-AF45-40F6-AE19-605B9BAB4D19@iki.fi> References: <20120601222311.GB598@launde.brong.net> <41D94689-2BBA-4E74-B6AE-CD6C75918A11@iki.fi> <20120602042751.GD2654@launde.brong.net> To: Bron Gondwana X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "imap5@ietf.org slimming-down IMAP." Subject: Re: [imap5] ERASE command as part of MOVE X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:39:18 -0000 On 2.6.2012, at 7.27, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> It doesn't need to be an extra roundtrip. You can run uidexpunge even = if store fails and it doesn't do anything bad. By avoiding the extra = roundtrip it is possible for the server to optimize the STORE+EXPUNGE = into equivalent of ERASE. (Dovecot does halfway that - it for example = doesn't rename maildir files on STORE stage, just unlinks them on = EXPUNGE.) >=20 > Not so easy if you want to delete the messages by sequence number of > course. >=20 > TAG ERASE 1:10 >=20 > Isn't implementable as a pipelined command, it would have to be >=20 > TAG1 STORE 1:10 +Flags \Deleted > TAG2 UID EXPUNGE UID1,UID2,UID3,UID4,UID5..UID10 It can still be pipelined. You would of course need to know the UIDs. > So how does Dovecot handle a crash or filesystem error during that > intermediate stage? Replay an action log? =20 Yes. > What if the file can't > be renamed, but it's already replied to a client saying "yes, your > flag store succeeded"? The message gets marked as having "dirty flags" meaning the flags in = index file should be used instead of the flags in maildir file.= From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Sat Jun 2 08:07:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4996721F854E for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.423 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KpTHGDD9v0kd for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8B921F8542 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C531F8CFE4; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338649634-10044-10043/11/15; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:07:14 +0000 Message-Id: <4FCA2C20.20108@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:07:12 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> In-Reply-To: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Barry Leiba Subject: Re: [imap5] Comments on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-01 X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:07:18 -0000 Lovely review, thanks. On 05/31/2012 04:20 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > - =C2=A72: what is the problem with sequence MOVE and EXPUNGE? I wouldn't mind having MSN-based move. But if you look at the yearly=20 move proposal disasters, MSNs were often mention just before the whole=20 thing exploded. So I thought, since I couldn't find any clients that both expose move in=20 the UI and use COPY rather than UID COPY, why not skip the MSN variant=20 in the -00 draft? If you as client author would prefer MOVE to UID MOVE, and none of the=20 server authors have a problem with implementing it, then I don't mind=20 adding it to the draft. > - =C2=A72: "atomically" - I would prefer not to use the term "atomic" = given > that we are allowing partial failures (i.e., some messages might not be > moved, whilst others are). So in the first paragraph I suggest changing > "atomically" to "using a single command". The word atomic seems to be a trouble magnet. I've removed the word=20 completely from the draft, and instead merely describe what's desired=20 (each single message is either moved or left unchanged). > - =C2=A73: This needs a 3501-like "formal" definition with Arguments:, > Responses:, Results: etc. It should use the same text for describing > preservation of flags (see note below) and internal date. I disgree, but if you want I'll do it. For now I've only added an open=20 issue to do it (time is short today and I'm still only halfway through=20 your review). > We need to > decide whether the \Recent flag is set like COPY (probably should be). I'm strongly in favour. Everything should be like copystoreexpunge,=20 unless there is a specific and good reason to differ. > Also, the [TRYCREATE] behavior from COPY should be re-used. Should > probably note that this command is only valid in selected state (or > include a comment to that effect in the formal syntax which 3501 does > for the command-select syntax element). It is reused already; MOVE is defined in terms of, etc. But I'll add a=20 sentence like "which means that e.g. TRYCREATE blah". > - =C2=A73, =C2=B62: "UID EXPUNGE" - need a reference to the UIDPLUS = extension. Added already. If I didn't misunderstand, Barry asked me to not post any=20 update until the WG has been chartered. > - =C2=A73, =C2=B64: states that \Deleted must not be set in the target = mailbox. > But what if the messages being moved already had \Deleted set prior to > the move? Shouldn't we just state that the flag/keywords prior to the > move must be set on the messages in the target mailbox? I've had requests that it work both ways. I have no strong opinions = myself. > - =C2=A73: As already mentioned, EXPUNGE responses need to be present. = Might > be worth pointing out that there could be a * EXPUNGE for a message not > being moved, but which got expunged in another session. Actually, more > complicated is the case where a message being moved was expunged in > another session - presumably that message is not moved? Yet it would = get > reported in a * EXPUNGE, but not be part of the COPYUID set. Fixed. > - =C2=A73: Might want to make it clear that * FETCH FLAGS is NOT sent = if > moved messages have \Deleted added as part of the "internal" server > implementation of move. I don't think that was at all clear, or even intended ;) But I think=20 you're right, and I added it. > - =C2=A73: Example: change "@S:" to "S:". Fixed. > - =C2=A73: COPYUID response in the argument is wrong - it should have = three > values: destination mailbox UIDVALIDITY, set of uids from source > mailbox, set of uids in destination mailbox. Current example only shows > one set of uids. Fixed. > - =C2=A74: whilst no one may implement it, there still ought to be a > reference to the interaction with ANNOTATE. ANNOTATE =C2=A74.6 has = detailed > text on the interaction with COPY and something similar is needed for = MOVE. A few paragraphs up I added a sentence stating specifically that=20 extensions that extend COPY, extend MOVE in the same way. Will that do? > - =C2=A76: "command" is not the right syntax element to extend. I would > suggest defining a uidmove element and then use that to extend the 3501 > uid element: > > uidmove =3D "UID MOVE" SP set SP mailbox > uid =3D/ uidmove I've changed since I posted the last update. I'll leave it as it is for=20 now. Who knows whether we'll have an MSN-based move. Barry: I understood you as saying that I should hold of on posting=20 updates until the WG has been formed. Was that right, or can I post an=20 update? Cyrus: If I post an update soon, it'll likely contain TBD for=20 some of your issues. Arnt From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Sat Jun 2 08:11:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C38A21F8587 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:11:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.442 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgEXxzdZf5Ka for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95A921F8585 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B2BF8CFE4; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338649914-10044-10043/11/16; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:11:54 +0000 Message-Id: <4FCA2D38.2030906@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:11:52 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <4FC76025.1020508@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4FC85B2E.3030808@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4FC8B4F8.6060908@gulbrandsen.priv.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:11:57 -0000 This discussion is SO much better than the horrors we've had in the past. Arnt From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Sat Jun 2 08:23:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793E121F8528 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lqfDLRhG7Nfy for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED40F21F84EC for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19977F8CFEB; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1338650597-10044-10043/11/18; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:23:17 +0000 Message-Id: <4FCA2FE3.9080108@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:23:15 +0200 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 To: imap5@ietf.org References: <1338453779.23343.140661083095925.4E6CADFD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4FC73CD8.2060009@flaska.net> <1338457927.4384.183.camel@innu> <4FC743D7.1010603@flaska.net> <20120601222658.GC598@launde.brong.net> <4FC9480C.50101@flaska.net> In-Reply-To: <4FC9480C.50101@flaska.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Subject: Re: [imap5] Should unsolicited EXPUNGE responses be returned during UID MOVE? X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:23:19 -0000 This makes a lot of sense... but I think the basic problem here is one we cannot fix any more: COPYUID cannot be parsed without knowledge of the command that caused it. So, I think that a client which issues MOVE has to add an extra reference to the cached message(s) when it issues MOVE, and when it parses the COPYUID it looks at the reference(s) held by the command. MOVE makes this much more acute, but I note that the problem exists with copystoreexpunge too: C: a COPY 1000:1999 foo S: * 1000 EXPUNGE S: * 1500 EXPUNGE S: a OK [COPYUID 4132 1000:1499,1501:1999 1000:1998] done (One of the two messages had been copied by the time it was expunged, the other was expunged before it could be copied.) Arnt From barryleiba@gmail.com Sat Jun 2 08:46:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEED21F84B6 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.003 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHr9-eK19JQq for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A576321F84CF for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so1843816qcs.31 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tk5U3Uhr3nBlxQd+L/46NVWaG9lxIWs4VLjLsJAY9QM=; b=qnLfYIFDyrLCYnCVB+xE+EDWgCLYTQvpjF1BMvXnqkfLKHVVDEmCJ/3iHkwFOpOt0n oskXKm2A2wi7TJkGoVJLLUVeCXdvvRTFBhmQyWC8b0oPjep80nR6iBaMMv2iQu5RtXRt xUIWAIS4pS+4GGA463R2HfBgunNfhU8Hit0XMDNSU7LQDwmudMvC4d8uVvuPmbCXOO10 J5rCgqWbeDa3QKgPSkkBhCgcr48qolDSK0KkMvf/Faqyn9XRHEol4JNFviv9AydEynph b3Yn+ZLeA8bSN9qjQGDyfHyNxwDZahtjmxI8iwwkjunorL+2VrZcyRzCO5ZYuIcDcT0d 3aog== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.200.194 with SMTP id ex2mr7948902qab.58.1338651974052; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.82.129 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FCA2C20.20108@gulbrandsen.priv.no> References: <7EF71BCD5999FCCF89A1E22D@caldav.corp.apple.com> <4FCA2C20.20108@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:46:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OlrVaHr82WCvSJQrNTUOHDeyKvU Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: imap5@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imap5] Comments on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-01 X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:46:15 -0000 > Barry: I understood you as saying that I should hold of on posting updates > until the WG has been formed. Was that right, or can I post an update? > Cyrus: If I post an update soon, it'll likely contain TBD for some of your > issues. We're probably talking about a three-week wait before the working group is chartered, barring unforeseen objections. I somewhat prefer that you hold updates until then, and then post draft-ietf-imapmove-move-00, but it's not a terribly strong preference. If you think continued review and discussion would benefit from posting draft-gulbrandsen-imap-move-02 before then, then do so. I always say that versions are cheap. We shouldn't hold up progress because we're hesitant to post a revision. Barry From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Tue Jun 12 11:31:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659CA21F84CD; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HfU-BXCExPV2; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECC421F8535; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so5514247lag.31 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=jTZc21cQzAHxFPgkcBZlO7b4a14++xxjpmKxELSzLs8=; b=hi+jWRpvdZnnx7+FEiM5H23LA6SYmTAGtG7Yizjx5D32qcpCtQIIchHQA4Jo7qNkIj HtZiOvs1E9hWCSWVldNlqF8FQKTKXlwouXXNuF2sBRcB0H+ZaCPtE/syRXAQ6KPeiMQW NSzXzgUlLkwxtlY68KPOzKIKrOeXAJNnwZAAYYBSjVbO1aY3/oBm5b2z6ftiyYWWW1pv gXulu+kmy4Hqn3aQifRceofQKFO121bL3ZYIeWzz/kn4tTZQIGs1BxDxwBoErnkATnC2 Rxnz91qj7AzgHofVf7W8xfY8a0YYoCqXVc3QeHkUysOkIa2L7oHb99wfkhwuk+1oPMgn SuAA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.36.130 with SMTP id q2mr4948556lbj.44.1339525909973; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.48.104 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:31:49 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xYOh1L3N7gNUaylJmIg0iZ8RG6U Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: imap5@ietf.org, imapext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe32a2080b2704c24aae62 Subject: [imap5] imapmove discussions go to X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:31:55 -0000 --e0cb4efe32a2080b2704c24aae62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The Secretariat has moved the ietf-imapext mailing list from imc.org to < imapext@ietf.org>, subscriptions, archives, and all. If you were subscribed to the old list, you have been subscribed to the new one. Please take all imapmove-related mail there. That will be the official mailing list for the new working group when it is chartered. Barry --e0cb4efe32a2080b2704c24aae62 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Secretariat has moved the ietf-imapext mailing list from imc.org to <imapext= @ietf.org>, subscriptions, archives, and all. =A0If you were subscri= bed to the old list, you have been subscribed to the new one.

Please take all imapmove-related mail there. =A0That will be= the official mailing list for the new working group when it is chartered.<= /div>

Barry
--e0cb4efe32a2080b2704c24aae62--