[Dovecot] Issues with VANISHED CHANGEDSINCE

[Timo Sirainen]

On 8.11.2012, at 0.34, Michael M Slusarz wrote:

> 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.

I wonder how much would it help if you

a) Used the uidset/seqset parameters with SELECT command

and optionally

b) Dovecot implemented it slightly better than required by RFC:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lemonade/current/msg04771.html