On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 10:10, Richard Bang wrote:
Hi,
Just for my upended worth. My implementation will never return either
/Marked or /Unmarked.
This is because when I was testing with multiple concurrent connected
clients (as I like to work) it screwed up the new message counts. I want
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:10:59AM +0100, Richard Bang wrote:
A new command set MONITOR and UNMONITOR would solve this as it would
allow my client to be notified of any mailbox it were interested in.
I've suggested similiar commands before.. And Mark was also planning some
new mail
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Richard Bang wrote:
Just for my upended worth. My implementation will never return either
/Marked or /Unmarked.
I see. Do you believe that deliberately thumbing your nose at the
protocol, as you say you will do, is the way to build interoperability or
create quality
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 17:03, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
others evidently just went ahead and _used_ the
\Unmarked flag even though it's completely irrelevant to them.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
What others used \Unmarked without
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 19:11, Mark Crispin wrote:
Anyway, I think the nicest way to do this would be
to tell server to send standard untagged STATUS replies for specified
folders.
That would be very expensive with some mail stores. STATUS requires
values that *may* be in mailbox metadata
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote:
If you also send notifications for some client selected mailbox xyz,
that could be used to reset the contains new mail flag. I think that
would make it pretty much usable.
You already have that ability: that's what \Marked and \Unmarked do!
\Marked
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Or actually .. UW-IMAP + mbox seems to set mailbox \Unmarked even if I
do only STATUS for it. That wouldn't work well. Is it even
RFC-compliant? :)
What version? What host operating system?
If UW imapd does that, then it is a bug and I will fix it.
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 23:58, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Or actually .. UW-IMAP + mbox seems to set mailbox \Unmarked even if I
do only STATUS for it. That wouldn't work well. Is it even
RFC-compliant? :)
What version?
Tested with 2003.337 and 2002c.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I thought \Marked == atime mtime, \Unmarked == atime = mtime? STATUS
opens the mbox file which updates atime, so how could it even work? You
could fix it with utime() but that'd be ugly and racy.
Surprise. There is quite a bit of such ugliness
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 22:38, Mark Crispin wrote:
That's one possible implementation/interpretation. Here's another:
No status -- folder _may_ have new mail -- check it.
\Marked -- folder probably has new mail -- go there.
\Unmarked -- folder doesn't have new mail -- skip it.
OK...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Edward Hibbert wrote:
Does anyone know of any clients which make use of this flag? Presumably
they don't depend on it, since it's not mandatory.
Its also pretty badly defined (the only requirement is that it is returned
for 'interesting' mailboxes, but 'interesting' is
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
Its also pretty badly defined (the only requirement is that it is returned
for 'interesting' mailboxes, but 'interesting' is never defined in a
solid way, only a suggestion is given).
This is because, many years ago, CMU didn't want to be nailed down
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Mark Crispin wrote:
This is because, many years ago, CMU didn't want to be nailed down on a
more precise definition. It's you folks who came up with that wording.
However, the intended purpose was always clear.
I can't accept responsibility for discussions I didn't
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote:
However, the wording is unfortunate.
OK, I can go along with that.
Was there a reason why you did not bring up this issue when RFC 3501 was
in Last Call?
Will you now propose amended wording for the next revision?
It is very annoying to hear
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 17:24, Mark Crispin wrote:
\Unmarked is the most useful status. It indicates to the client that it
can definitely skip consideration of a mailbox.
I'm not convinced I agree.
A common behaviour I desire from a client is to find mailboxen which
have new mail. Yet the
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
Consider the case where my main client is issuing a LIST periodically
then asking for STATUS of non-\Unmarked folders.
I connect with another client, SELECT a folder and FETCH an old message
from it, for some reason. The folder in question had new
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 19:00, Rob Siemborski wrote:
The \Recent message flag has the same problem.
Indeed it does, and I cannot imagine how a client would actually make
_use_ of it in a way which is useful to the user.
The \Marked and \Unmarked folder states correspond to the \Recent
message
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
Indeed it does, and I cannot imagine how a client would actually make
_use_ of it in a way which is useful to the user.
There are two philosophies in writing a client.
One is to write a client which is fast and addresses the 98% case.
The other is
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
A common behaviour I desire from a client is to find mailboxen which
have new mail. Yet the \Unmarked flag doesn't necessarily indicate that
status. The \Unmarked flag says that no new mail has been delivered
since the mailbox was last SELECTed.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
A common behaviour I desire from a client is to find mailboxen which
have new mail. Yet the \Unmarked flag doesn't necessarily indicate that
status. The \Unmarked flag says that no new mail has been
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 19:45, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
A common behaviour I desire from a client is to find mailboxen which
have new mail. Yet the \Unmarked flag doesn't necessarily indicate that
status. The \Unmarked flag says that no new mail has been
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Woodhouse wrote:
Do we agree that however we define 'new mail', '\Marked' status in most
practical circumstances will mean the same to a client as no status at
all -- it's '\Unmarked' which is the interesting one since it means that
you can skip the folder. Because
22 matches
Mail list logo
