wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095100.22756.mbox:2,S

48 lines
1.6 KiB
Plaintext

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."