RE: Out of range sequence sets in SEARCH
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 00:34, Larry Osterman wrote: > There is clearly something wrong with a client specifying an invalid > message sequence number in a fetch (since the client knows at all times > the number of messages in a mailbox), but that does not necessarily hold > true for search (although the reason for this currently escapes me). I think if client requests a too large sequence number anywhere, it's most likely a client bug and it's better to show it so it can be fixed. In this case it was Mulberry trying to apply some filter to a message it just had expunged in previous filter.
RE: Out of range sequence sets in SEARCH
Actually I always assumed that the lack of a BAD response was simply that the search untagged response was empty indicating that no message was available that met the search criteria specified. I remember MarkPu and I having a long debate about this when Mark was implementing search in the Exchange server - we went back and forth and decided that there was noting wrong in a client specifying an invalid message ID number. There is clearly something wrong with a client specifying an invalid message sequence number in a fetch (since the client knows at all times the number of messages in a mailbox), but that does not necessarily hold true for search (although the reason for this currently escapes me). > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Crispin > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:28 AM > To: Timo Sirainen > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Out of range sequence sets in SEARCH > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > Giving out of range sequence set for FETCH returns BAD error with most > > IMAP servers, but why not with SEARCH? Is there a reason, which I can't > > see in RFC, or is it just lack of error detection? > > The latter (lack of error detection). > > It is also possible to think that SEARCH does not actually reference a > message the way FETCH does, and therefore failing to detect an out of > range sequence in SEARCH is less of a problem. > > -- Mark -- > > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. > Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Re: Out of range sequence sets in SEARCH
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: > Giving out of range sequence set for FETCH returns BAD error with most > IMAP servers, but why not with SEARCH? Is there a reason, which I can't > see in RFC, or is it just lack of error detection? The latter (lack of error detection). It is also possible to think that SEARCH does not actually reference a message the way FETCH does, and therefore failing to detect an out of range sequence in SEARCH is less of a problem. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Out of range sequence sets in SEARCH
Giving out of range sequence set for FETCH returns BAD error with most IMAP servers, but why not with SEARCH? Is there a reason, which I can't see in RFC, or is it just lack of error detection? -- - For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: http://www.washington.edu/imap/imap-list.html -
