I can understand that if using a set of UIDS or a UID range it would be complicated to return a fully-descriptive result and from what I can see, the IMAP RFC author was trying to avoid this complexity.
However, it someone specifies JUST ONE UID and that UID is non-existent, then a NO response could be a more useful response. I know the spec allows a response of OK but it is possible that this was not the intention for a single non-existent UID. Regards Attila -----Original Message----- From: Timo Sirainen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 March 2012 15:46 To: Attila Sipos Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-1.2.9: OK No messages copied On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 14:28 +0100, Attila Sipos wrote: > When I issue an IMAP copy command using the wrong UID, the server > gives an "OK No messages copied" response. > > This seems like the wrong response to me. > If the UID doesn't exist, then it should respond with a "No" response > - maybe something like "NO - copy error: bad UID" > > I believe "OK No messages copied" would only be a suitable response if > the email with the supplied UID had already been known to be copied > successfully. > I am using dovecot 1.2.9 - has this been fixed in newer versions of > dovecot? Dovecot's behavior is correct. This (or things related to this) has been discussed in IMAP protocol mailing list. Basically it's not an error to use nonexistent UIDs. If you want details, ask in IMAP protocol ml and someone will probably explain. Netcall Telecom Ltd Registered in England 2831215. Registered Office : 3rd Floor, Hamilton House, 111 Marlowes, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP1 1BB
