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
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 subscrib
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 --
ht
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 07:20 -0800, Larry Osterman wrote:
> It turns out that the documentation for LIST explicitly says that you
> can have whatever flags you wanted (read the spec carefully) so there
> was no need for a new variant of LIST.
H.. Can we then have a \Subscribed flag too?
Or is
Because at the first IMC face-to-face, a number of client authors said:
"Hey, it would be REALLY nice if you added this feature to the
protocol", Mike Gharns said "Sure, I'll write it up", and I said "Ok,
I'll put it in". So we did.
And a couple of people added support for it and.
It turns o
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.
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 w
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
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 *
