I believe that if you don't return UIDVALIDITY, it means that the server doesn't support persistent UID's. UIDs are still supported, but they won't persist from one select to another.
Larry Osterman -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Maclean Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: UIDVALIDITY response optional? I have been looking at the transcript of an IMAP testing session that shows some very strange behavior on the part of the server concerned. Some of its behavior is unequivocally wrong. One element seems wrong but I am not 100% certain. This server (which I cannot identify since it has not been identified to me) claims IMAP4Rev1 compliance by virtue of its initial response (* OK IMAP4rev1 Service Ready). But when sent a SELECT command that succeeds, it does not return a UIDVALIDITY response. Now RFC 3501 states that, "If [the UIDVALIDITY response] is missing, the server does not support unique identifiers." After trying to reconcile this with the rest of the document I think it must be inaccurate, perhaps a vestige of some historical variance. Elsewhere the spec leaves no ambiguity: UIDs and UIDVALIDITYs are absolutely required. And, since there is no way to get a UIDVALIDITY other than in a UIDVALIDITY response to a SELECT or EXAMINE command, that response must be required. Is my analysis correct? Pete Maclean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html -----------------------------------------------------------------
