82 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
82 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
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>
|