On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> No such guarantee would be necessary. Consider this:
>
>C: a search subject "make.money.fast"
>S: * search 101 942
>C: 1 fetch 101,942 ...
>S: * fetch 101 ...
>S: * fetch 942 ...
>S: 1 ok
>S: * search 327
>S: a ok
>C
Hi I'm trying to install imap uw on macos x 10.3 with pam
authentification and ssl no password but no way. Someone told me that
version 2003 in development work, so I tried to patch macos X 10.3 to
add new target oxp to 2002 version from diff between two version. Bu no
way, the patch is include
Sorry, forgot that. This should be better:
>> Example:C: A654 FETCH 2:4 (FLAGS BODY[HEADER.FIELDS (DATE FROM)])
>> S: * 4 FETCH
>> S: * 8 FETCH FLAG change...
>> S: * 2 FETCH
S: * NO [ALERT] Server shutting down in 5 minuttes
>
At 2003-11-05 11:10:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Example:C: A654 FETCH 2:4 (FLAGS BODY[HEADER.FIELDS (DATE FROM)])
> S: * 4 FETCH
> S: * 8 EXPUNGE (Deleted from another client)
> S: * 2 FETCH
> S: * 3 FETCH
> S
Hi,
I think it is worth improving the explanation of this in next version of the IMAP
specification. E.g. examples like:
Example:C: A654 FETCH 2:4 (FLAGS BODY[HEADER.FIELDS (DATE FROM)])
S: * 2 FETCH
S: * 3 FETCH
S: * 4 FETCH
S:
Mark Crispin writes:
That wouldn't work, because IMAP doesn't guarantee any processing
order; it just guarantees that everything was done when the tagged OK
comes back.
No such guarantee would be necessary. Consider this:
C: a search subject "make.money.fast"
S: * search 101 942
C: 1 fetch
