MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Thu Aug 16 22:01:30 2012
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:48 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP part numbering corner case
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSO.2.00.1208162143500.13998@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>
References: <502DBEA4.2070204@verizon.net>
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.1208162109520.13998@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>
	<060A31A9-066E-43F0-97AF-4B68522832B1@iki.fi>
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.1208162143500.13998@morgaine.smi.sendmail.com>
Message-ID: <F673FF00-66E4-4C44-8E3D-5914E92F5083@iki.fi>

On 17.8.2012, at 7.51, Philip Guenther wrote:

>>> This violates this paragraph from RFC 3501, page 55:   
>>>        A part of type MESSAGE/RFC822 also has nested part numbers,
>>>        referring to parts of the MESSAGE part's body.
>>> 
>>> ...which when combined with the first quote above, means that "1.1" 
>>> should be a valid specifier for the inner message's content.
>> 
>> Is it valid? 1.1 makes sense when it's a multipart, in which case it 
>> refers to the first MIME part, but is it valid when ther's no multipart? 
>> Looks like UW-IMAP allows it, but not 1.1.1, so maybe it was meant to be 
>> valid. I could add it to my tests..
> 
> Flip it around.  Given a message, if you nest it inside another message as 
> a message/rfc822 part, the addressing of its parts are formed by 
> concatenating the addressing of the part it is nested as and the parts 
> inside it.

Yes, after thinking about it for a while I agree. Added it to my tests. Anyway, [1.MIME] isn't a valid request in Joshua's test mail. I also changed Dovecot to return an empty string for it and for [1.1.1], maybe it'll help to avoid client developer confusion in future. :)


