On 09/29/2004 04:34:05 PM, Michael Wener wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 09:42, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Michael Wener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> to do something that turns out to be a step away from the ultimate
> goal is frustrating to all involved. There's a good chance that
I'm not frustrated
2)
Is it enough to answer your question? I see NetIQ MailMarshal is
available in both SMTP and "for Exchange" variants.
Pawel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete Maclean
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:20 AM
To: Pawe
Hi,
I encountered a strange response to message part fetch command. It
looks like a bug in the server to me but I would like to get a second
opinion. Suggestions how to work around this problem are welcome too.
The problem is the server promises to send 23824 octects long literal
but sends 4040+ ch
On 2004.03.24 17:27, Paul Jarc wrote:
Pawel Salek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Server that answers NO follows the specification but is useless.
If the message is, in fact, no longer available by the time FETCH
arrives, then I would instead call it "honest".
I have impression
On 2004.03.24 15:33, Paul Jarc wrote:
Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not necessary to cater to cretins.
>
> It is, however, necessary to avoid giving them wiggle room where
they
> can point to the specification and claim that they are right and
> everybody else is wrong.
Ok. AFAIC
Hi,
I have a question regardin encoding of mailbox names. rfc3501 contains
some discussion about UTF-7 encoding of mailbox names but the formal
syntax says:
mailbox = "INBOX" / astring
; INBOX is case-insensitive. All case variants of
; INBOX (e.g
Is the example in section 6.4.4. of rfc3501 correct? It says:
S: A283 OK SEARCH completed
C: A284 SEARCH CHARSET UTF-8 TEXT {6}
C: XX
S: * SEARCH 43
S: A284 OK SEARCH completed
Shouldn't server first send a command contiuna
On 2002.05.11 10:29 Marek Kowal wrote:
> copying/deleting the file. That's exactly what I want from IMAP. There
> are two possible solutions:
>
> 1. We put MOVE command directly in the RFC. Then all server
> programmers are supposed to implement it, and for the mail stores,
> which do not allow i
Hi,
On 2002.05.10 04:26 Mark Keasling wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark Crispin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
>> You are better off using the natural native IMAP delete-expunge model
>> internally, and make "trash" be a user interface concept rather than
>> what happens inte
