Re: INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread Tim Showalter
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 08:45, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > All IMAP servers must present the user with an INBOX. INBOX may also be > present under another name. > > Is it common that IMAP servers also make INBOX available under a different > name? Is there a way to find out whether two different nam

Re: Partial fetches beyond EOF

2002-07-09 Thread Mark Crispin
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > If I understood the question correctly: "why would the server bother > returning this"? Can the server don't send FETCH reply in this case. It could avoid sending a FETCH reply, but then it would have to send a NO instead of an OK. It is a protocol vi

Re: INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread Mark Crispin
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Is it common that IMAP servers also make INBOX available under a different > name? Ideally, it should not happen. However, implementation issues with legacy mail stores may make it impossible to prevent. > Is there a way to find out whether two diff

Re: Partial fetches beyond EOF

2002-07-09 Thread Alexey Melnikov
Mark Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, David Harris wrote: > > assume we > > have a message with 384 bytes, and the client issues this command: > >A30 FETCH 42 (BODY[TEXT]<385.16384>) > > Am I correct in assuming that the correct return for this command is: > >* 42 FETCH (BODY[TEXT]<

Re: INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread Pete Maclean
At 05:45 PM 7/9/2002 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >All IMAP servers must present the user with an INBOX. INBOX may also be >present under another name. This is a matter that I have had to deal with. >Is it common that IMAP servers also make INBOX available under a different >name? I have no i

RE: INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread Larry Osterman
INBOX may also be present under another name??? That's surprising to me. Since Exchange treats the user's primary delivery point as a localizable entity (Boite d'envoi), the Exchange IMAP server suppresses the name of the real primary delivery point and replaces it with INBOX because we figured

Re: INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread DINH Viet Hoa
> All IMAP servers must present the user with an INBOX. INBOX may also be > present under another name. > > Is it common that IMAP servers also make INBOX available under a different > name? Is there a way to find out whether two different names refer to the > same mailbox? Is there any sort of

INBOX by any other name

2002-07-09 Thread Arnt Gulbrandsen
All IMAP servers must present the user with an INBOX. INBOX may also be present under another name. Is it common that IMAP servers also make INBOX available under a different name? Is there a way to find out whether two different names refer to the same mailbox? --Arnt -- --

Re: Partial fetches beyond EOF

2002-07-09 Thread Arnt Gulbrandsen
Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The more difficult issue is if the client asked for BODY[TEXT]<386.16384>. > I contend that BODY[TEXT]<386> (zero bytes starting at byte 386) in no way > implies that byte 385 exists, and thus the server should respond in the > same way rather than issuing an err