From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu (mx1.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.32]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCFA2843D for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:23:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc8Iv-0000000G7js-1ori for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:23:54 -0600 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc8Iv-00000000hWr-0wGZ for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:23:49 -0600 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc8Is-00000000hWi-1vDM for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:23:46 -0600 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rc8Iq-0000000G7jQ-2oMg for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:23:46 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID :In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7KpiLi6u5E4gvHz6ufy7p7rBK9Djfdglv2Hnq6+z8xg=; b=gBaD+tvn4xFqPI0O9lCz2bg7jV tSua4ns31Bb09L2lJrzLOy9swVaZ2QeOsn0Aexqux+WTgkIVaH+vvgT7G9lPJrI/H0q4FEOClW4HV Mjl7arq99znM2CU1YmAScFOllF9k5JjFJgZC+bRwNGarV/uUPXG4ZB+qdOBvj9VR0IvE=; Received: from dilbert.mork.no ([2a01:4f9:c010:a439::d]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rc8Ib-0002e9-R3 for ding@gnus.org; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:23:33 +0100 Received: from canardo.dyn.mork.no ([IPv6:2a01:799:10da:6900:0:0:0:1]) (authenticated bits=0) by dilbert.mork.no (8.17.1.9/8.17.1.9) with ESMTPSA id 41JINQJV1030993 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:23:28 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mork.no; s=b; t=1708367006; bh=7KpiLi6u5E4gvHz6ufy7p7rBK9Djfdglv2Hnq6+z8xg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:Message-ID:From; b=nwrh2sUj7pc1nLFWO9CA38IoTSvr2phgJrVMNO1LFu4hbIZ4NQEYtkxnYsJoSJnZB gnNl+b1vHkwXwjDtUBppiSrJL/otsBeB7L1sOCxN0rd2kqH8847GHERjqYuOt7QeUJ MpQAnfF6gViZUu+lYZJriIhDUWQKe167Z2FbXK2E= Received: from miraculix.mork.no ([IPv6:2a01:799:10da:690a:d43d:737:5289:b66f]) (authenticated bits=0) by canardo.dyn.mork.no (8.17.1.9/8.17.1.9) with ESMTPSA id 41JINQYX3012224 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:23:26 +0100 Received: (nullmailer pid 414249 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:23:26 -0000 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= To: Jakub =?utf-8?B?SmXEjW3DrW5law==?= Cc: ding@gnus.org Subject: Re: ProtonMail Bridge Patch Organization: m References: <86msrzknim.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87frxrq84g.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <86cysvexqv.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87y1bhpt1o.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r0h94pvh.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:23:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r0h94pvh.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> ("Jakub =?utf-8?B?SmXEjW0=?= =?utf-8?B?w61uZWsiJ3M=?= message of "Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:57:28 +0000") Message-ID: <87sf1o71pd.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at canardo X-Virus-Status: Clean List-ID: Precedence: bulk Jakub Je=C4=8Dm=C3=ADnek writes: > "Eric Abrahamsen" writes: > >> I also wasn't able to find anything explicit in RFC 3501 or 9051 about >> the order of FETCH responses -- for my information, can you point me in >> the right direction? > > That's the thing. There's nothing explicit in RFC 3501 about the message > order so AFAIK the consensus is that UIDs don't have to be sorted. I was curiuos about this too and went looking. I believe the definition of "sequence-set" (which is what the ID range in the FETCH request is) on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3501#page-90 suggests that clients should expect replies in any order: Servers MAY coalesce overlaps and/or execute the sequence in any order. Bj=C3=B8rn