MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Tue Jan 22 01:20:28 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Courier bug(?)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwJ8xq7O8vGDHe0D9Jviac06o-QtePMhKYV7HzwzRPMPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130121144822.Horde.kbr5Y8IKwMlD1fH1Qun9hQ1@bigworm.curecanti.org>
	<CAKHUCzwJ8xq7O8vGDHe0D9Jviac06o-QtePMhKYV7HzwzRPMPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1358846428.12608.2.camel@hurina>

On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 22:20 +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> On 21 Jan 2013 21:50, "Michael M Slusarz" <slusarz@curecanti.org>
> wrote:
> > OR... is the fact that this is a FLAGS response unattached to the
> given UID query mean that this is OK?  In other words... since FLAGS
> wasn't explicitly requested by the FETCH command, is this untagged
> response legal as a unilateral flag change response sent by the
> server, regardless of the fact that it appears during an active UID
> command?  This doesn't seem correct, and it can be argued that the
> BODY[HEADER] access itself "caused" the FLAGS FETCH response anyway.
> 
> Right, this is indeed a unilaterally sent FETCH, and it wasn't really
> caused by the other FETCH - it's just been batched until a command was
> in progress. Or maybe it just happens to have been sent at the same
> time.
> 
> In practise, it's likely that the IMAP server explicitly checked flag
> changes when it received the FETCH, but that's an implementation
> detail.
> 
> In any case, I don't think this is a bug.

Assuming it was unilaterally sent FETCH and not a normal reply for
setting the \Seen flag by UID FETCH BODY[], I agree. Especially when
NOTIFY is enabled this won't even be possible to avoid.


