Re: unobtrusive monitoring

2002-09-25 Thread ber
1-4. Thanks. I'll start working on the "Long-term unobtrusive monitoring of mail boxes protocol" rfc. brian On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 04:03 PM, Mark Crispin wrote: > There is no simple answer.

Re: unobtrusive monitoring

2002-09-25 Thread ber
Thanks for the explanation. Is there a way to determine what behavior to expect? How would you reliably monitor mail (what's new and who's it from, what flags changed and what got expunged) without permanently affecting the Seen flag? Or does that not have a simple answer? brian On W

unobtrusive monitoring

2002-09-25 Thread ber
I want to monitor mail from a functionally read-only client as I just want to create a fancy biff. It's been pointed out EXAMINE does not necessarily work for this as untagged EXPUNGE/FETCH/EXISTS responses are not forthcoming from all servers in read-only mode. In searching through the archives

Re: FETCH and \Seen flag

2002-09-20 Thread ber
e what was happening. Thanks again. brian On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 12:07 PM, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:45:44 -0400, ber wrote: >> Having >> opened INBOX with EXAMINE and FETCHed a message it >> seems the \Seen flag was added. I thought EXAMI

FETCH and \Seen flag

2002-09-20 Thread ber
cessing this mailbox. Thanks, brian [fathom:~] ber% telnet localhost 143 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 LOGIN-REFERRALS AUTH=LOGIN] localhost IMAP4rev1 2002.328 at Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:24:58 -0400 (EDT) 1 login b

Re: untagged EXISTS response required?

2002-09-19 Thread ber
Ah, thanks. I'll change it from EXAMINE. I really appreciate your help. brian On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 02:44 AM, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 02:42:26 -0400, ber wrote: >> I established a 2nd telnet session and saw the updated EXISTS number &g

Re: untagged EXISTS response required?

2002-09-19 Thread ber
quot;SHOULD" or "MAY" or "MUST". brian On Friday, September 20, 2002, at 02:28 AM, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:51:15 -0400, ber wrote: >> If I'm polling a server with NOOPs should I expect an EXISTS response >> to be issued

untagged EXISTS response required?

2002-09-19 Thread ber
If I'm polling a server with NOOPs should I expect an EXISTS response to be issued when the mailbox (INBOX) changes (e.g. new mail?) I was counting on it (perhaps incorrectly) but am not getting it from a particular imapd of unknown origin: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 LOGIN-REFERRALS AUT