On Fri, 31 May 2002 22:09:11 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> *sigh*, and it's not just Sam, it's the whole community. What is a good
> implementation, is Cyrus better?
Among freeware servers:
Cyrus is an excellent implementation. There are a couple of minor issues in
Cyrus (as I r
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:27:16 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of
>> >getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier
>> >deliberately violates IMAP
On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:27:16 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of
> >getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier
> >deliberately violates IMAP as his protest against the protocol.
> We'll
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent
>to *, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the
>client does not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID
>client. In the case of a message seque
Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways.
Could you elaborate?
--Arnt
On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:20:44 -0700, Larry Osterman wrote:
> Actually I'm pretty certain that (I think) pine will generate message
> sets in the form of a:b where b>a. I remember that it surprised me when
> I first saw it, so I quickly changed the server to handle that case.
I'm pretty sure that
As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent to
*, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the client does
not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID client.
In the case of a message sequence number, max+1:* is a syntax error. Unli
message set. I don't understand why anyone should do so.
Andy
>
>Larry Osterman
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:36 AM
>To: Paul Smith
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: max+1:* fetc
s.
Larry Osterman
-Original Message-
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:36 AM
To: Paul Smith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "
Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent.
>
> It doesn't say this.. (as far as I can see). It's open to interpretation
> from reading the RFC.
Exactly. ;)
It says a:b means all the messages with MSNs/UIDs between a and b,
inclusive. Th
To: Alexey Melnikov
>> Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
>>
>>
>> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
>> >
>> > Paul Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
&g
1, 2002 5:36 AM
> To: Alexey Melnikov
> Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches
>
>
> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
> >
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > > >Say
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Paul Smith wrote:
> (It doesn't actually seem to explicitly say what '10:20' means either...
> (as far as I can see). It means 'messages 10 to 20 inclusive' (I hope...),
> but I can't see anywhere it says this it wouldn't be impossible for
> someone to interpret it to mean '2
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Paul Smith wrote:
>At 14:51 31/05/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>>Gaël Roualland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600.
>> > But does that have sense ?
>>Sure.
>> > (general understanding is probably that the
>> > second sequence
At 14:51 31/05/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Gaël Roualland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600.
> > But does that have sense ?
>
>Sure.
>
> > (general understanding is probably that the
> > second sequence number must be larger or equal to the firs
Gaël Roualland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600.
> But does that have sense ?
Sure.
> (general understanding is probably that the
> second sequence number must be larger or equal to the first one, but I
> can't find it in the RFC).
Precis
GaÌl Roualland wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
> >
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> > > >is the correct response?
> > > >
> > > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>
Alexey Melnikov a écrit :
>
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> > >is the correct response?
> > >
> > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> > >1 OK FETCH completed.
> > >
> > >or
> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> >is the correct response?
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >1 OK FETCH completed.
> >
> >or
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >* 1000 FETCH (UID 1600 FLAGS (\S
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>Paul Smith wrote:
>> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
>> >is the correct response?
>> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>> >1 OK FETCH completed.
>> >or
>> >1
Paul Smith wrote:
> At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
> >is the correct response?
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >1 OK FETCH completed.
> >
> >or
> >
> >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
> >* 1000 FETCH
At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest UID is 1600. Which
>is the correct response?
>
>1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>1 OK FETCH completed.
>
>or
>
>1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS
>* 1000 FETCH (UID 1600 FLAGS (\Seen))
>1 OK FETCH comp
22 matches
Mail list logo
