[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:24:22 -0400 |
>It's mostly about refile and delete, in the IMAP-MH case. Client
>A deletes message 1. Client B moves it to folder foo. Who wins?
>Especially when B syncs after A, thus message 1 is no longer in place on
>the server. (These are *very* simple examples of what you have to deal
>with ...)
It looks like to me ... the message ultimately gets deleted, in that
case, from a very brief examination of how OfflineIMAP works.
Of course, the question really should be: what SHOULD happen in that
case?
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Joel Uckelman, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Todd M. Kover, 2013/10/31
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24