IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] MOVE - A few late comments

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 26 September 2012 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCAE21F851C for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzWxisJfX2vi for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:10 -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 A409D21F851E for <imapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1056065qca.31 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=atxjJ/jSu9LdHrpPt6l2ZaBbsGmKPzgqsLPhYyBZP0Q=; b=NzuxWSBIWmaSEhMevsZRCOmmCcL9tz7Bmrh/dNmwJHDs8MWpHwnc+HDaUMQo4T4On+ YDxIdsmcfbDwM/uAoUVYPOPoIqIqOdrkKa4yebGDyU60pIsid1/IKLzosw+te+vZCG5n evVYoLTNWXA4Ac5GFBSQvtN6Wl24ZnZ2yssaZg51x/smo0OCmW/1Dck4VBI6EOMFkCQN edIFxMOZKxnYbXPaptPrm4Qsvhsen6aCLH74WheC25maeSJsE/ZHfi76Pk9pKkcI84rf ssXESFH3sopcjck3k4ImbvxSV8NzmRD1EX8Ic3BaV4DB5mV7U6lC84oEpITKea11eWbe y+nQ==
Received: by 10.224.181.198 with SMTP id bz6mr4418975qab.97.1348700049152; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neptune.local ([70.42.157.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ep8sm6396697qab.22.2012.09.26.15.54.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5063877A.1090609@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:53:46 -0400
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
References: <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D762312F4F7@XMB163CNC.rim.net> <1348602587.18365.140661132619417.766B1A99@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D762312F76B@XMB163CNC.rim.net> <CAC4RtVB9ZrNVFctj9ddjK7_JSgYYkTv2Cuhd+MjU1Z_qit8tLw@mail.gmail.com> <CABa8R6utpjKOvws13Etbep+a_t+Zx3QoB0Bgx6gaNHVwOxowAw@mail.gmail.com> <1348692262.28413.140661133130989.6CCAE683@webmail.messagingengine.com> <50638030.60505@computer.org> <B6F597E8-6BC7-438C-A44F-C78C3ADD9B8E@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <B6F597E8-6BC7-438C-A44F-C78C3ADD9B8E@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>, Zoltan Ordogh <zordogh@rim.com>, "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] MOVE - A few late comments
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:54:10 -0000

> For each individual message ok. But should all the messages be either moved or none moved? Mainly should it fail and abort if some of the messages were already expunged? COPY is defined to either copy all or nothing. My MOVE implementation also moves all or nothing. But some people wanted to use rename() and such that would make reverting in the middle difficult.
I'm OK with saying that the action for each message must be well
defined, but allow for a group MOVE to fail in the middle.  We should
verify the consensus on that point, though.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email