wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095029.22688.mbox:2,S

27 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From slusarz at curecanti.org Sun Jan 6 21:34:02 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Michael M Slusarz <slusarz@curecanti.org>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:50 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: Missing UIDNEXT during mailbox synchronization
In-Reply-To: <f45e9e58-e469-4e86-b95e-f2c0d38c5766@flaska.net>
References: <db123879-1082-4911-b7ce-3a861d62217a@flaska.net>
<20121228112725.Horde.cM7EjLQoqQDix9dQMs5KcA1@bigworm.curecanti.org>
<f45e9e58-e469-4e86-b95e-f2c0d38c5766@flaska.net>
Message-ID: <20130106223402.Horde.ZSCj1mxY7M87XW6Ro4AX9A1@bigworm.curecanti.org>
Quoting Jan Kundr?t <jkt@flaska.net>:
> Looks like that part of 3501 was not updated from 2060, then -- the
> UIDNEXT is listed as REQUIRED in the description of the SELECT
> command, as Bron pointed out.
I reported this as an errata to RFC 3501, with the recommendation that
the "assumption" sentence from the UIDNEXT text be removed in order to
eliminate the ambiguity between this text (which implies that the
UIDNEXT response may be optional) and the REQUIRED requirement located
in Sections 6.3.1 & 6.3.2.
michael