On Fri, 31 May 2002, Larry Osterman wrote: >There is no requirement in the protocol that max be higher than min in a >message set. So 1601:1600 is the same as 1600:1601, and thus the second >response is correct.
If this is correct, then courier-imap is wrong. I tested version 1.4.6 (most recent) and also an older version, 1.3.12. Both return nothing when queried with the "too high uid:*" fetch. Andy >Larry Osterman >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gaël Roualland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:36 AM >> To: Alexey Melnikov >> Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches >> >> >> Alexey Melnikov a écrit : >> > >> > Paul Smith wrote: >> > >> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >> > > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest >> UID is 1600. Which >> > > >is the correct response? >> > > > >> > > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS >> > > >1 OK FETCH completed. >> > > > >> > > >or >> > > > >> > > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS >> > > >* 1000 FETCH (UID 1600 FLAGS (\Seen)) >> > > >1 OK FETCH completed. >> > > >> > > The first one. >> > >> > No, the second one, because * is translated to 1600 for UIDs. >> >> Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600. >> But does that have sense ? (general understanding is probably that the >> second sequence number must be larger or equal to the first one, but I >> can't find it in the RFC). >> >> Gaël. >> >> -- >> Gaël Roualland -+- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen
