MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Wed May 23 21:22:16 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: FLAGS response
In-Reply-To: <20070524033850.GA31634@penne.toroid.org>
References: <20070524012401.GA30894@penne.toroid.org>
	<alpine.WNT.0.99.0705231829570.3716@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
	<20070524033850.GA31634@penne.toroid.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.99.0705232059170.10455@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> 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.

What is "applicable" is fundamentally implementation-dependent.  It 
includes at least the system flags defined in the base-specification. 
It's said somewhat indirectly, but it also includes any keywords.  But it 
might include other things (see the formal syntax).

> 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.

Before issuing that FETCH response, the server has to send a FLAGS 
response with the new keyword.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

