24 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
24 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From dkarp at zimbra.com Wed May 23 21:54:49 2007
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Dan Karp <dkarp@zimbra.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:39 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: FLAGS response
|
|
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.99.0705232059170.10455@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <1582938983.97731179982489618.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
|
|
> > And it adds to the vector if a FETCH response contains a flag that
|
|
> > was not announced in the FLAGS (because it was created after the
|
|
> > current session began, for example)? OK.
|
|
>
|
|
> Before issuing that FETCH response, the server has to send a FLAGS
|
|
> response with the new keyword.
|
|
|
|
If this is the case, my implementation may not be doing the right thing.
|
|
|
|
If PERMANENTFLAGS included "\*" and I do a "A001 STORE 1 +FLAGS (NEWFLAG)", is the server obliged to send back a new untagged FLAGS response before the unsolicited FETCH?
|
|
|
|
If someone else does the STORE which added the NEWFLAG in my selected mailbox, is the server required to send me a new untagged FLAGS response?
|
|
|
|
If the answer to either of these is "yes", can someone point me to the section of RFC 3501 that I should have read more closely?
|
|
|