Mark Crispin wrote : > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, DINH Viet Hoa wrote: > > But don't you think there is some waste of bandwidth using SEARCH > > instead of STATUS to get the number of UNSEEN messages ? > > If that is be anything other than a trivial consideration, there are other > conditions in the selected mailbox which are simple to identify.
I am explaining my point of view : I feel like this is a limitation in the specification due to the fact that one implementation (maybe the reference implementation) will do that this way even if the mailbox is already selected : << In some implementations, the server must select the status mailbox internally, get the information, then close it. >> I am ok with this proposition : << The STATUS command exists in the protocol to get the state of non-selected mailboxes. >> but why can't its usage be extended to selected mailboxes ? > How often do you want the number of unseen messages in the selected > mailbox, as opposed to wanting to know *what* messages are unseen? The problem is not "how often" but can I use this since it almost seems to be available ? I think I need more justifications to understand this part of the specification. Additional problem: What about the behaviour when we open a second connection to make the "STATUS" calls ? Is it allowed when a mailbox is selected in an other session but in the current session it is not ? I know this is some bypass of the problem but I am worrying about the validity of that kind of "solution". -- DINH V. Hoa, "après l'escrime, je prends toujours mon nesquik-fromage blanc" -- VoisinZ
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
