On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 20:35 Europe/Helsinki, Ken Murchison wrote:
I would have the server return all the decodeable parts, and return a
NO
[UNKNOWN-CTE]. From that the client should be able to figure out
what's going
on and act appropriately.
In this case, should the server omit the
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
--On Monday, August 11, 2003 1:33 PM -0400 Pete Maclean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose that
the server works through the messages, decoding each appropriate MIME
part and sending it. Then suppose it hits one message that has the
part encoded using a method that
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Pete Maclean wrote:
A related issue is that I feel the need for some clarification on the whole
business of commands completely succeeding or completely failing. I have
come to regard this as an important dictum for IMAP implementation as it
has been mentioned a few times
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 09:20 AM, Pete Maclean wrote:
What I was actually trying to get at is this: should the server set
the \Seen flags for messages for which it has returned data or not?
Yes, it should.
Given my understanding that you have implemented this, I am wondering
FETCH 1:* BINARY[1]
I expect it would be rare for a client to issue a FETCH for a specified
body part for multiple messages but it is certainly possible and I can
imagine odd situations where it would be quite plausible.
If the client already knows that all the messages in the range are
Steve, Lyndon,
Thank you for your responses. I was puzzled by what Steve wrote and, given
Lyndon's last message, suspect now that I was not as specific in my
question as I might have been.
True I asked for guidance on how much data the server should return in the
circumstances described, but
What I was actually trying to get at is this: should the server set
the \Seen flags for messages for which it has returned data or not?
Yes, it should.
Better question is should it set \Seen flag for messages for which it
didn't return the BINARY data (but might have returned other things). I
--On Monday, August 11, 2003 1:33 PM -0400 Pete Maclean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FETCH 1:* BINARY[1]
I expect it would be rare for a client to issue a FETCH for a specified
body part for multiple messages but it is certainly possible and I can
imagine odd situations where it would be quite
I have been looking at implementing the BINARY extension (as per RFC 3516)
in my server. I was tempted because it seemed that it might be a good
marketing item and because, at first glance, it looked very easy to
do. After some deeper thought however I have come to see two issues with
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:10:13 -0400 Pete Maclean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Fair enough. Of course there's no law that says a client has to know what
it's doing but let us suppose that it does. Then a lot depends on exactly
what one means by know. I was thinking of the kind of situation
10 matches
Mail list logo
