On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:50:22 +0100 (CET), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >* STATUS "new" (messages 3 uidnext 0 uidvalidity 0)
>> So even if it isn't too clear _why_ a client would want to do this, it's
>> obviously a "case" that is not handled in the rfc in
Hi,
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:17:13 +0100 (CET), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote...
> If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
> before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY? Since the
> STATUS command can not change the mailbox in any way - I assume it's n
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:50:22 +0100 (CET), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >* STATUS "new" (messages 3 uidnext 0 uidvalidity 0)
> So even if it isn't too clear _why_ a client would want to do this, it's
> obviously a "case" that is not handled in the rfc in any way.
Huh? The RFC is very specific ab
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:12:19 -0500, Pete Maclean wrote:
> * STATUS "new" (messages 3 uidnext 0 uidvalidity 0)
I hope that everybody understands that this is a non-compliant response, and
therefore represents a server bug which must be fixed.
Andreas Aardal Hanssen writes:
So even if it isn't too clear _why_ a client would want to do this,
it's obviously a "case" that is not handled in the rfc in any way.
Here's a plausible example:
Suppose I've been using elm to read mail and store them in local folders
for the past fifteen years.
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Pete Maclean wrote:
>Andy,
>This is an important question. It has led me to realize that the same issue
>exists in one edition of my server. I just confirmed this by creating a
>new mailbox outside of IMAP and doing a STATUS on it which went as follows:
>2 status new (message
Andy,
This is an important question. It has led me to realize that the same issue
exists in one edition of my server. I just confirmed this by creating a
new mailbox outside of IMAP and doing a STATUS on it which went as follows:
2 status new (messages uidnext uidvalidity)
* STATUS "new" (mess
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Harris wrote:
>On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:15, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> >> If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
>> >> before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY?
>> >I don't understand this question.
>> Since UIDVALIDITY
Andreas Aardal Hanssen writes:
If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not
seen before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY?
Since the STATUS command can not change the mailbox in any way - I
assume it's not allowed to index the messages either.
Indexing
On 4 Dec 2002 at 8:15, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >> If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
> >> before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY?
> >I don't understand this question.
>
> Since UIDVALIDITY is an IMAP-feature, and an "unseen" mailb
Hi, Mark. Sorry for being so unclear.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Mark Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>> If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
>> before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY?
>I don't understand this ques
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
> before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY?
I don't understand this question.
The UIDVALIDITY is always the uidvalidity value assigned to the mailbox,
an
If someone does a STATUS on a mailbox that the IMAP server has not seen
before - what is expected output for UIDNEXT and UIDVALIDITY? Since the
STATUS command can not change the mailbox in any way - I assume it's not
allowed to index the messages either.
Is it far off to say that UIDNEXT == # of
13 matches
Mail list logo
