- ;; We don't unconditionally use the alternative (valid) form, since
- ;; this is said to be significantly inefficient. The first time we
- ;; get here for a given, we'll try the canonical form. If we get
- ;; the known error from the buggy server, set the flag
- ;; buffer-locally (to account for connections to multiple servers),
- ;; then re-try with the alternative UIDS spec.
+ ;; The first time we get here for a given, we'll try the canonical
+ ;; form. If we get the known error from the buggy server, set the
+ ;; flag buffer-locally (to account for connections to multiple
+ ;; servers), then re-try with the alternative UIDS spec. We don't
+ ;; unconditionally use the alternative form, since the
+ ;; currently-used alternatives are seriously inefficient with some
+ ;; servers (although they are valid).
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: Maybe it would be cleaner to have a flag to not signal
+ ;; the error (which otherwise gives a message), and test
+ ;; `imap-failed-tags'. Also, Other IMAP clients use other forms of
+ ;; request which work with Exchange, e.g. Claws does "UID FETCH 1:*
+ ;; (UID)" rather than "FETCH UID 1,*". Is there a good reason not
+ ;; to do the same?