Hi Oliver, Oliver Blasnik wrote:
> As you see, IDLE in a non-selected state is valid. Couriers implementation > is wrong (responding with a error message). Btw, your implementation is > also wrong in selecting INBOX ;) Interesting point there. I have been puzzled all along on why outlook would possibly want to do an idle without selecting a mailbox. So I figured the expected behaviour on the server part was to autoselect inbox, which I now realize was a wrong conclusion. The programmer must have put this idle call outside the mailbox handling as if the client was required to enter idle mode whenever it was idling itself. Funny, I guess it takes a MS programmer mind to interpret the rfc like that. It sure didn't hit my mind as a reasonable thing to do. > If going IDLE while not SELECTed, the server MUST NOT report any error > and also MUST NOT report changes of any mailbox. Yes, your interpretation makes sense. As a matter of fact, after reading your explaination, I'm pretty sure outlook is disregarding any reports while it has not explicitly selected a mailbox itself. I think I will change the patch to reflect this and test it against an outlook client (have to ask someone, I have not access to OL myself). Thanks, Tomas _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
