# Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )

Mark Crispin (MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU)
Sat, 9 Jul 1994 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- Previous message: Mark Crispin: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- In reply to: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"

    Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT)

    From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>

    Subject: Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )

    To: "Steven D. Majewski" <sdm7g@elvis.med.virginia.edu>

    In-Reply-To: <199407092047.AA16745@elvis.med.Virginia.EDU>

    Message-Id: <MailManager.773786979.18656.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>

Thanks for the explanation.

As far as URLs go, it seems reasonable to me that sequence numbers be
permitted in the syntax (they'd work just fine with static mailboxes), but
that the syntax rather clearly favor UIDs instead. In other words, present no
motivation to use sequence numbers unless you have to.

A way to accomplish this would be through some truly disgusting and long
keyword to indentify it, e.g. IMAP_sequence_specification_static.

- Next message: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- Previous message: Mark Crispin: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- In reply to: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"