On Fri, 31 May 2002, Paul Smith wrote: >At 14:51 31/05/2002 +0200, you wrote: >>Ga�l Roualland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600. >> > But does that have sense ? >>Sure. >> > (general understanding is probably that the >> > second sequence number must be larger or equal to the first one, but I >> > can't find it in the RFC). >>Precisely. As far as the RFC says, "1:2" and "2:1" are equivalent. >It doesn't say this.. (as far as I can see). It's open to interpretation >from reading the RFC.
Well, "20 to 10 inclusive" and "10 to 20" inclusive pretty much tell the same tale, if my english serves me right. I would have to say that it's in any way wrong to assume that one can /not/ write 20:10. Andy >(It doesn't actually seem to explicitly say what '10:20' means either... >(as far as I can see). It means 'messages 10 to 20 inclusive' (I hope...), >but I can't see anywhere it says this, it wouldn't be impossible for >someone to interpret it to mean '20 messages from 10 onwards (ie 10->29 >inclusive)' or even something else. The RFC says "colon delimits between >two numbers inclusive." which doesn't seem like English to me, and is vague >about what those 'numbers' mean.... :-) ) > > >Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway >[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pscs.co.uk/ > > > -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen
