MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm  Tue Nov 15 05:48:00 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:47 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT/EXAMINE clarification of UNSEEN
In-Reply-To: <4EC268D1.7010404@aol.com>
References: <C61A1BDF-03DD-4ED9-BFCA-C6183F07DD3E@mac.com>,
	<alpine.OSX.1.10.1111141446070.8578@rastawifi.orthanc.ca>,
	<1321311798.30750.140660998918417@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4EC1A0A5.8051.EFC2A39@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
	<1321346922.6321.140660999083661@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<4EC268D1.7010404@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1321364880.3715.140660999182809@webmail.messagingengine.com>

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:27 AM, "John Snow" <snowjn@aol.com> wrote:
> I disagree with the "musts", or at least it's inconsistent. 

My intention was to stick with the REQUIRED verbiage.  But I'm happy
with SHOULD.

> The first paragraph says the unseen response must be sent if there are
> any unseen.  This makes the second paragraph unnecessary. If the unseen
> response is missing, the client doesn't have to assume anything.  It can 
> know that there are no unseen.

Or that it's talking to pre-rfc3501 server.  Mark said that the wording
about needing a search was added in response to a previous uncertainty
about how to respond to this field.  I'd like his comment on how best
to handle that.

I'd be happy to cut the "if this is missing" part, and say "you can assume
there are no unseen if this field isn't sent", but negative assumptions
suck.

If I was starting from scratch:

OK [UNSEEN NIL]

But then if I was starting from scratch, and it was my "baby", I wouldn't
do it like this anyway.

Bron.
-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  brong@fastmail.fm


