On Tue, 25 May 2004, Henry Baragar wrote: >Now, Binc recognizes CLOSE as a command yet issues a "* NO" which >(according to the marked passage) is for statuses that do not indicate the >completion (or error) of a command. Is my understanding of the RFC >correct here? Should Binc be issuing a "<tag> NO" in this situation?
Yes, Binc should according to the RFC use the tag in this case. Your patch is good, I'll include it. ><ASIDE> >Do these two snippets do the same thing? The "is not supported" in >bincimapd.cc does not seem as clear to me as does the "is unsupported in >this state" in bincimap-up.cc. Should they be the same? Or is there a >reason for the more ambiguous error message in bincimapd.cc? ></ASIDE> They should be the same. The two files have so much in common that they will be merged somehow in 1.3, but I didn't put any effort into that yet. :) Thanks for the patches! Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ | than to do it poorly."
