Honestly, it looks like it could be Exchange 5.5, but I'm not sure - the UIDVALIDITY value seems higher than I'd expect for Exchange. Also, I don't remember 5.5 supporting UID+ so...
Larry Osterman -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arnt Gulbrandsen Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:58 AM To: Stuart Nicholson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLAGS vs PERMANENTFLAGS Stuart Nicholson writes: > However I would expect folders that can't be modified to have the > READ-ONLY property surely? We see things like this (taken from a user > log): > > 0003 SELECT "INBOX"[0x0D][0x0A] > * 40 EXISTS > * 0 RECENT > * OK [UIDVALIDITY 1012731894] UID validity status > * OK [UIDNEXT 7880] Predicted next UID > * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Draft \Seen) > * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS ()] Permanent flags > * OK [UNSEEN 8] first unseen message in INBOX > 0003 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed > > And the user complains that other clients allow FLAGS to be set and > they are set permanently (over sessions) which seems to violate the > RFC, at least as I understood it. May I ask which server that is? > I'm beginning to think given our short session times and rigid session > model (i.e. we always sync the message flags at start of session), > there's really little point in us honouring PERMANENTFLAGS at all. Does your client refuse to set session flags? Why? Arnt
