I agree with mark - using * for a message sequence number in an empty folder is clearly a protocol error and thus BAD is appropriate.
Larry Osterman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crispin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:52 AM To: Simon Josefsson Cc: Mark Crispin; Pete Maclean; IMAP Interest List Subject: Re: possible draft 19 changes for sequence On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:00:38 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I feel "an error" is a bit loose. Exactly what will happen? The server would return either BAD or NO. I prefer BAD. > It is > not impossible for a client to send e.g. a UID SEARCH UID 1:* to a > mailbox before it discover that the mailbox is empty. Of course, but that's not what is under discussion. That text specifically refers to message sequence numbers, not to UIDs. By the way, even a UID only client could avoid the problem if it paid attention to the EXISTS value. If that was the case, then I wouldn't have this idiot Sam flaming me because his non-compliant server doesn't interoperate with UID clients. > I think it would be simpler to say that * represents a missing article > if the mailbox is empty. Thus it is not an error to use * in a UID > set in empty mailboxes, but rather it simply doesn't match any > articles. That's pretty much what the text immediately following it says.
