[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 21:17:32 -0400 |
>But that describes a simple 1:1 mapping case. Nothing there says the
>proof extends to the 1:n mapping case (i.e. multiple clients).
Fair enough ... I'm just trying to imagine exactly a) what "conflicting"
clients would be doing, exactly, to conflict, and b) what SHOULD happen
when a conflict occurs. As I understand it, the messages are immutable,
so there's no issue in terms of two clients changing a message.
--Ken
- [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Joel Uckelman, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Earl Hood, 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, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/10/28