https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383131
--- Comment #4 from Matthieu Hazon <matth...@hazon.fr> --- Hi Jan, Thank you for your answer. No worries for the delay, I was in holidays too :) I agree this really seems to be a server side issue. I will do my best to contact my provider. Thanks for the link though, it will help. I understand your point. At the begining, my point of view was that this patch seemed really transparent for the client as we just "enforce" what the server should already understand. This should change nothing for the working servers and fix the others. But I acknowledge there could be a risk. Especially because I find the RFC unclear when it states: "If the client did not provide the list of UIDs, the server acts as if the client has specified "1:<maxuid>", where <maxuid> is the mailbox's UIDNEXT value minus 1" I assumed the UIDNEXT value is the last one we know but it's not specified there. Plus, the patch I provided seems to do the job but as you said, it can't be proven to be safe without proper testing. Anyway, I'll let you know if I make some progress with my provider to fix the root cause of this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
