[Dovecot] Issues with VANISHED CHANGEDSINCE

[Michael M Slusarz]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at curecanti.org>:

> I see your point, but the problem is that is not intuitive when  
> reading the RFC.  One part of the RFC defines the behavior of  
> VANISHED (EARLIER) as only returning changes since the mod-sequence  
> given.  And you are correct that another part of the RFC says that,  
> essentially, a server is allowed to break this required response.
>
> I'm thinking that this is more of an issue with the way the RFC is  
> written.  I'll move this over to the imap protocol list to get  
> further input.

Sigh.  Never mind.  For some reason, I completely ignored (missed?)  
this part of the RFC:

    Note: A server that receives a mod-sequence smaller than <minmodseq>,
    where <minmodseq> is the value of the smallest expunged mod-sequence
    it remembers minus one, MUST behave as if it was requested to report
    all expunged messages from the provided UID set parameter.

So you are right, I was wrong, and the world is good.

michael