MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Fri Oct  7 07:36:31 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] FETCH (rfc822) response
In-Reply-To: <4E8F0D21.3040004@earthlink.net>
References: <4DEBB242.2090200@BusCom.net>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1106051606130.4942@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<4E3382E3.3010509@earthlink.net>
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.1107292118540.19142@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1107292242400.911@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<4E8F0D21.3040004@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <8189.1317998191.572045@puncture>

On Fri Oct  7 15:30:57 2011, Rick Sanders wrote:
> I'm working with a server whose response to a FETCH (rfc822) is  
> different than I have seen before.
> 
> >> 1 FETCH 1 (rfc822)
> << * 1 EXISTS
> << * 1 FETCH (RFC822[] {0}
> 
> 
Yeah, that's wrong...


> I'm used to seeing something like * 1 FETCH (RFC822 {1522}.  In  
> this case I have to send a separate 1 FETCH 1 (rfc822.size) command  
> to get the message size:   << 1 FETCH (rfc822.size 5149).
> 
> Just curious, is this compliant?

I don't think so. Try asking for BODY[] instead, though - it's the  
same thing as RFC822, but more modern syntax, so it might work better  
against that server.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

