[Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox

[Mark Crispin]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> The entire reason why UNSELECT was defined is that this is not a reliable 
>> mechanism.
> Which is why my client uses UNSELECT on those rare occasions wherever 
> possible, of course. If that mailbox actually exists, however, I'd be 
> reasonably surprised, but it's not impossible.

That's good to hear, thanks.

I think that we can agree that in an ideal (and thus unattainable...) 
world, SELECT should not unselect the previous mailbox unless it fails, 
and UNSELECT should be a mandatory part of the base specification.

Then again, we wouldn't have needed UNSELECT if CREATE/DELETE/RENAME were 
not in the base specification (they weren't in IMAP2).  Once again, the 
Law of Unintended Consequences bites the unwary... :-(

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.