> Date: 2026-08-05 14:17:48+0200 > From: Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> > > Hi Kevin, > > > Date: 2026-08-05 11:37:46+0800 > > From: "Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> > > > [...] > > > > diff --git a/imap/command.c b/imap/command.c > > > > index 63dedf6c..94c98883 100644 > > > > --- a/imap/command.c > > > > +++ b/imap/command.c > > > > @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static void cmd_parse_vanished(IMAP_DATA *idata, > > > > char *s) > > > > end_of_seqset = s; > > > > while (*end_of_seqset) > > > > { > > > > - if (!strchr("0123456789:,", *end_of_seqset)) > > > > + if (!strchr(CTYPE_DIGIT_C ":,", *end_of_seqset)) > > > > > > I wonder if this character set has any name in RFC 7162. I can't find > > > it, though. The only reference to DIGIT seems to be in > > > mod-sequence-value. > > > > In RFC 7162 there is: > > expunged-resp = "VANISHED" [SP "(EARLIER)"] SP known-uids > > known-uids = sequence-set > > ;; Sequence of UIDs; "*" is not allowed. > > > > sequence-set is in RFC 3501: > > sequence-set = (seq-number / seq-range) *("," sequence-set) > > seq-range = seq-number ":" seq-number > > seq-number = nz-number / "*" > > -> except note the '*' is not allowed in known-uids > > nz-number = digit-nz *DIGIT > > > > So it's just a sequence of UIDs or UID ranges, each command separated, > > with '*' disallowed. Thus this addition of "," and ":". Is this worth > > making a special name for? > > Thanks! I'd make a name for it. It'd allow us documenting what you > clarified above, so that it's easier to look up when needed. > > How about this? > > #define CTYPE_SEQSET_RFC3501_C CTYPE_DIGIT_C ":," // sequence-set > > I'd document in the commit message that we use it because of RFC7162's > known-uids.
Self-correction; since '*' is not allowed, it's not really sequence-set.
Let's call it maybe this?:
#define CTYPE_UIDS_RFC7162_C CTYPE_DIGIT_C ":," // known-uids
Cheers,
Alex
>
> This name also adds consistency with the surrounding code, which uses'
> 'end_of_seqset'. I believe that would improve self-explicability of
> this code.
>
> > > > -static const char safe_chars[] =
> > > > "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+@{}._-:%";
> > > > +static const char safe_chars[] = CTYPE_PFCHAR_C "+@{}:%";
> > >
> > > LGTM. Are those extra safe chars specified by any standard, or is it
> > > just of this project?
> >
> > Not that I can tell. It goes way back in the commit log to 986ab5e9.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > > +#define CTYPE_PFCHAR_C CTYPE_ALNUM_C "._-" // POSIX.1-2008
> > > > portable
> > > > + // filename
> > > > character set
> > >
> > > Actually, that was already true as of POSIX.1-2001 (Issue 6); the first
> > > modern-day POSIX, where POSIX and SUS (the Single UNIX Specification)
> > > were unified
> > >
> > > I suspect this was already true way earlier, since I see a reference to
> > > the 'portable filename character set' in XPG Issue 4 (v2) (from which
> > > modern-day POSIX derives).
> > > <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009656499/toc.pdf#page=423>
> > > I don't see the the definition of the p.f.c.s. in that document, because
> > > it was in a separate volume, and I can't find it. It's also difficult
> > > to find older standards, unless you know where they are. :)
> >
> > Okay, I'll just leave it as "portable filename character set" in the
> > comment then.
> >
> > > LGTM.
> >
> > Great. Thanks Alex!
>
> Thank you! :-)
>
>
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
>
> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
