[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       c-client
Subject:    Re: mh not keeping flags intact when doing a check
From:       "Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists" <tpo2 () sourcepole ! ch>
Date:       2004-06-11 18:26:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0406112026450.11253-100000 () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > *Is* the mh driver "strictly IMAP semantics compiant" right now? Is the
> > fact that a) it forgets about all the flags and b) when reusing an open
> > connection it just forgets about all the deleted messages "strictly IMAP
> > semantics compliant"?
>
> Yes and yes.  It properly advertises the mailbox as not having any
> PERMANENTFLAGS.  Your client should have observed the empty PERMANENTFLAGS
> list and taken appropropriate action.
>
> > Would it make the situation worse to fix that behaveour?
>
> Yes.  Read the mh specification carefully, and pay close attention to the
> requirements in RFC 3501 section 3.1.  It will probably also help to look
> at some mh source code (which I did when I wrote the mh driver).
>
> The answer to your request is not a "no" that becomes a "yes" if you ask
> enough times.  The answer is a "no" that will always be a "no".
>
> You might "fix" it, and it might even work in your client.  But presently
> it will break some other client.  Sad experience tells me that the blame
> for that breakage will first be attributed to that client, and then by the
> author of that client to UW imapd, and only after long investigation
> (typically an incredible amount of time wasted by me) to your "fix".

Thanks for the answer
*t

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
  Tomas Pospisek
  http://sourcepole.com -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
-----------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]