MBOX-Line: From ams at oryx.com  Wed May 23 20:38:50 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: FLAGS response
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.0.99.0705231829570.3716@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
References: <20070524012401.GA30894@penne.toroid.org>
	<alpine.WNT.0.99.0705231829570.3716@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
Message-ID: <20070524033850.GA31634@penne.toroid.org>

At 2007-05-23 18:47:20 -0700, MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU wrote:
>
> Your server would be non-compliant with the IMAP specification.

I wish the IMAP specification were clearer about what an "applicable"
flag is. Anyway, I'll try to speed up the current implementation, now
that I know it's doing what clients expect.

> The c-client library loads a vector of flag names in stream metadata,
> and on a per-message basis keeps a bitmap (indexed the same way the
> vector is) instead of the names.

And it adds to the vector if a FETCH response contains a flag that was
not announced in the FLAGS (because it was created after the current
session began, for example)? OK.

> But you should avoid the temptation to consider whether it's alright
> to disregard something

I was wondering only whether my interpretation was correct, not looking
for something to disregard.

Thanks.

-- ams

