+++
+ -- Warning text added to this message by-- +
+ -- University of Washington Computing & Communications -- +
+ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- +
+
At 07:38 PM 5/27/2004, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Pete Maclean wrote:
One element seems wrong but I am not 100% certain. This server (which I
cannot identify since it has not been identified to me) claims IMAP4Rev1
compliance by virtue of its initial response (* OK IMAP4rev1 Servic
Thanks for correcting me Mark :) It's been too many years :(
Larry Osterman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Crispin
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:43 PM
To: Larry Osterman
Cc: Pete Maclean; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: UIDVALIDI
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Larry Osterman wrote:
I believe that if you don't return UIDVALIDITY, it means that the server
doesn't support persistent UID's. UIDs are still supported, but they
won't persist from one select to another.
No, UIDVALIDITY is required from an IMAP4 and IMAP4rev1 server.
If UIDs
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Pete Maclean wrote:
One element seems wrong but I am not 100%
certain. This server (which I cannot identify since it has not been
identified to me) claims IMAP4Rev1 compliance by virtue of its initial
response (* OK IMAP4rev1 Service Ready).
IMAP4rev1 compliance is indicate
I believe that if you don't return UIDVALIDITY, it means that the server
doesn't support persistent UID's. UIDs are still supported, but they
won't persist from one select to another.
Larry Osterman
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete
I have been looking at the transcript of an IMAP testing session that shows
some very strange behavior on the part of the server concerned. Some of
its behavior is unequivocally wrong. One element seems wrong but I am not
100% certain. This server (which I cannot identify since it has not bee
