On Fri, 31 May 2002, Mark Crispin wrote: >As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent >to *, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the >client does not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID >client. In the case of a message sequence number, max+1:* is a syntax >error. Unlike UIDs, there is no legitimate reason for a client to send >max+1 for message sequence numbers because a client knows the value of *.
Ok. >On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:34:42 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >> If this is correct, then courier-imap is wrong. >Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of >getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier >deliberately violates IMAP as his protest against the protocol. We'll see how he answers now. He claims that "comma delimits between two numbers inclusive" implies "A <= B <= C". Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen
