unsubscribe
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Guido Berhoerster <
guido+dovecot@berhoerster.name> wrote:
> * Timo Sirainen [2013-03-27 20:27]:
> > On 27.3.2013, at 13.41, Guido Berhoerster <
> guido+dovecot@berhoerster.name> wrote:
> >
> > > After some debugging on the protocol level I'v
On 27.3.2013, at 22.16, Guido Berhoerster
wrote:
> * Timo Sirainen [2013-03-27 20:27]:
>> On 27.3.2013, at 13.41, Guido Berhoerster
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After some debugging on the protocol level I've finally found the
>>> problem with per-user seen flags in read-only mailboxes. Dovecot
>>> actu
* Timo Sirainen [2013-03-27 20:27]:
> On 27.3.2013, at 13.41, Guido Berhoerster
> wrote:
>
> > After some debugging on the protocol level I've finally found the
> > problem with per-user seen flags in read-only mailboxes. Dovecot
> > actually does allow storing the seen flag on messages but AFA
On 27.3.2013, at 13.41, Guido Berhoerster
wrote:
> After some debugging on the protocol level I've finally found the
> problem with per-user seen flags in read-only mailboxes. Dovecot
> actually does allow storing the seen flag on messages but AFAICS
> it does not communicate that correctly to c
After some debugging on the protocol level I've finally found the
problem with per-user seen flags in read-only mailboxes. Dovecot
actually does allow storing the seen flag on messages but AFAICS
it does not communicate that correctly to clients, this is what
its response to selecting a read-only m
