On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
H.. Can we then have a \Subscribed flag too?
That would require that all subscribed mailboxes exist.
Or is there another way of finding out which folders are subscribed
other than separately issuing LIST and LSUB commands?
No.
-- Mark --
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:36 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
H.. Can we then have a \Subscribed flag too?
That would require that all subscribed mailboxes exist.
Not really.
Or is there another way of finding out which folders are subscribed
On 13 Jan 2004 at 10:36, Mark Crispin wrote:
H.. Can we then have a \Subscribed flag too?
That would require that all subscribed mailboxes exist.
Why? To me it simply suggests that all existing mailboxes that are
subscribed could report that fact via LIST.
Since I'm doing a lot of
, 2004 2:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Children flags, RFC3348.
OK, Arnt Gulbransen has pointed me at RFC3348, which covers
the CHILDREN extension (thanks Arnt).
What I want to know now is why is the Exchange server using
this extension?.
Consider this text from RFC3501 section
OK, Arnt Gulbransen has pointed me at RFC3348, which covers the
CHILDREN extension (thanks Arnt).
What I want to know now is why is the Exchange server using this
extension?.
Consider this text from RFC3501 section 7.2.1 (CAPABILITY response,
page 67 in my copy):
--
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Harris wrote:
What I want to know now is why is the Exchange server using this
extension?.
It is not incorrect for Exchange to send it without client permission.
flag-extension is part of the rule of mbx-list-flags (via mbx-list-oflag)
in RFC 3501, thus a server *may*
On 3 Jan 2004 at 16:55, Mark Crispin wrote:
What I want to know now is why is the Exchange server using this
extension?.
It is not incorrect for Exchange to send it without client permission.
flag-extension is part of the rule of mbx-list-flags (via mbx-list-oflag)
in RFC 3501, thus a
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Harris wrote:
There is nothing about RFC3348 that makes it either a standard or a
standards-track revision of RFC3501 - or even of RFC2060. Its status is
nothing more than informational.
I forget now why RFC 3348 was informational. Perhaps it was because
CHILDREN was
PS: I think that the requirement for standards-track for list-extension is
new in 3501, so it can be argued that 3348 is grandfathered.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
