On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote: > > *Is* the mh driver "strictly IMAP semantics compiant" right now? Is the > > fact that a) it forgets about all the flags and b) when reusing an open > > connection it just forgets about all the deleted messages "strictly IMAP > > semantics compliant"? > > Yes and yes. It properly advertises the mailbox as not having any > PERMANENTFLAGS. Your client should have observed the empty PERMANENTFLAGS > list and taken appropropriate action. > > > Would it make the situation worse to fix that behaveour? > > Yes. Read the mh specification carefully, and pay close attention to the > requirements in RFC 3501 section 3.1. It will probably also help to look > at some mh source code (which I did when I wrote the mh driver). > > The answer to your request is not a "no" that becomes a "yes" if you ask > enough times. The answer is a "no" that will always be a "no". > > You might "fix" it, and it might even work in your client. But presently > it will break some other client. Sad experience tells me that the blame > for that breakage will first be attributed to that client, and then by the > author of that client to UW imapd, and only after long investigation > (typically an incredible amount of time wasted by me) to your "fix".
Thanks for the answer *t -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Tomas Pospisek http://sourcepole.com - Linux & Open Source Solutions -----------------------------------------------------------