MBOX-Line: From snowjn at aol.com  Tue Nov 15 05:27:45 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: John Snow <snowjn@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:47 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SELECT/EXAMINE clarification of UNSEEN
In-Reply-To: <1321346922.6321.140660999083661@webmail.messagingengine.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>
Message-ID: <4EC268D1.7010404@aol.com>

I disagree with the "musts", or at least it's inconsistent. 

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.

To document existing behavior, is should read:

OK [UNSEEN <n>]
                     The message sequence number of the first unseen
                     message in the mailbox.  If there are no unseen
                     messages in the mailbox the UNSEEN response MUST 
                     be omitted.
                     If this is missing, the client can not make any
                     assumptions about the first unseen message in the
                     mailbox, and needs to issue a SEARCH command if
                     it wants to find it.


or, alternatively make the existence of the unseen response a SHOULD.

OK [UNSEEN <n>]
                     The message sequence number of the first unseen
                     message in the mailbox.  If there are any unseen
                     messages in the mailbox, an UNSEEN response SHOULD
                     be sent, if not it MUST be omitted.
                     If this is missing, the client can not make any
                     assumptions about the first unseen message in the
                     mailbox, and needs to issue a SEARCH command if
                     it wants to find it.



snow.



Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:13 PM, "David Harris" <David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz> wrote:
>   
>> When you wake up and get back onto this, one more small correction:
>>     
>
> Yeah, it's fine for you.  You already live in tomorrow!
>
>   
>>     If there are any unseen messages in the mailbox, an UNSEEN 
>>     response MUST be sent, if not it MUST be omitted.  
>>
>> We may as well be consistent with our MUSTs.
>>     
>
> Thanks for catching my late-night messup.  Indeed.  MUST keep our MUSTs
> in line!
>
> I also re-ordered the paragraphs so the "what to do when writing a server"
> parts were together before the "what clients have to do if it's not there".
>
> Submitted:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3501&eid=3032
>
> Bron.
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20111115/504b7a16/attachment.html>
