MBOX-Line: From David.Harris at pmail.gen.nz  Mon Nov 14 14:42:47 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: David Harris <David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:47 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT/EXAMINE clarification of UNSEEN
In-Reply-To: <1321310209.23714.140660998907545@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <C61A1BDF-03DD-4ED9-BFCA-C6183F07DD3E@mac.com>,
	<4EC18E1D.10652.EB3C6B5@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>,
	<1321310209.23714.140660998907545@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <4EC19967.19032.EDFE138@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>

On 14 Nov 2011 at 23:36, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> > > >                      SEARCH command if it wants to find it.  If there are
> > > >                      no unseen messages in the mailbox, it is not possible
> > > >                      to produce a sensible UNSEEN value, so servers MUST
> > > >                      omit this item.
> > 
> > Could I suggest that this might be rendered more simply:
> > 
> > "If there are no unseen messages in the mailbox, the UNSEEN 
> > response MUST be omitted, otherwise it MUST be sent."
> 
> That's really good.  You could probably even remove some negatives.  Hmm.
> 
> If there are any unseen messages in the mailbox, an UNSEEN response must
> be sent, if not it MUST be omitted.
> 
> What do you think?

From where I'm sitting, that appears to nail it.

Cheers!

-- David --

------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: 
David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz
           Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612

On the menu of a Hungarian restaurant:
   "Utmost of chicken."




