[Imap-protocol] SELECT of same mailbox
MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU
Wed Sep 7 13:27:38 PDT 2005
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> The entire reason why UNSELECT was defined is that this is not a reliable
> 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 --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
More information about the Imap-protocol