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
