Subject: Re: [imapext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-imapmove-command-05.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:06:28 +0000

On 30/11/2012 06:54, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 30.11.2012, at 7.48, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>>>> RFC 4315 relaxes the COPYUID
>>>> requirement, but only to a SHOULD (section 3), and specifies two
>>>> exceptions:
>>>>
>>>> (1) When the mailbox is protected from reads but allows writes (SHOULD NOT
>>>>    return)
>>> Oh, this is actually a good point that I hadn't noticed / thought of before.
>>> If mailbox ACLs prevent read access, the COPY command shouldn't expose how many
>>> messages it contains or when it gets new messages by sending COPYUID. This
>>> would be important for MOVE as well.
>> And when you put it that way, it's an information exposure issue that IMO
>> requires us to use SHOULD. I'm therefore changing the paragraph to read:
>>
>>   Servers supporting UIDPLUS [RFC4315] SHOULD send COPYUID in response to a UID
>>   MOVE command. For additional information see Section 3 of [RFC4315].
>>
>> Does this address the issue?
> Works for me.
Looks good to me as well (speaking as a participant).

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:58:06 -0800 (PST)

The last paragraph regarding MODSEQ ended up as:

  When one or more messages are moved to a target mailbox, if the server is
  capable of storing modification sequences for the mailbox, the server MUST
  generate and assign new modification sequence numbers to the moved messages
  that are higher than the highest modification sequence of the messages
  originally in the mailbox.

I plan on making this change at AUTH48.

				Ned