Hi Mark, now this sounds odd. There are (at least) two points against it:
a) What "professional" mail server system today relies on any CLIENT checking for spam/viruses? Even if so, how on earth can one assume that ALL clients connecting do the proper virus checking. And even so, would it not be extremely inefficent SELECTING/EXAMINING all the folders for "Recent" messages? b) All the above might count for me, but not for you - this is ok, you define your infrastructure, it might be useful to you. But the current definition as it is now is rather not useful for the majority of users, is it? Would it not be interesting to check out if any existing clients/servers depend on this behavior and change/extend it for future revisions? I'd be very interested to know how clients today use the /Recent flag - and especially how they work without it. As the latter should be assumed "the normal case" now (as no session is guaranteed to see these messages at all), this is (in my view) one of the few points in the RFC which definitely should be altered to become useful at all. Maybe Mark can explain what PINE does about it, and other client implementors about their programs respectively? Greetings, Christof ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Crispin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christof Drescher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:18 PM Subject: Re: What about /Recent? On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Christof Drescher wrote: > If this is the case, then what is the purpose of RECENT anyway?! I find recent to be very useful for virus/spam checking. If a session sees that a message is recent, then it is responsible for doing virus/spam checking on that message. If the message is not recent, then some other session has already done it. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
