On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:43 -0700, Michael M Slusarz wrote: > My argument is much simpler: it is blatantly breaking the RFC. From > RFC 5162 [3.2]: > > The VANISHED UID FETCH modifier instructs the server to report those > messages from the UID set parameter that have been expunged and whose > associated mod-sequence is larger than the specified mod-sequence. > **That is, the client requests to be informed of messages from the > specified set that were expunged since the specified > mod-sequence.** (emphasis added) > > If you are including UIDs in the FETCH return that have NOT been > expunged since the given mod-sequence, that directly contradicts this > language. The clear intent of VANISHED UID FETCH is to provide the > list of messages that existed in the mailbox at mod-sequence and no > longer exist in the mailbox as of the current HIGHESTMODSEQ.
That would require infinitely storing the modseq of when each message was expunged. Not very nice. Also the RFC talks a lot about this situation. The SELECT command has two optional parameters to optimize it.
