There is no requirement in the protocol that max be higher than min in a message set. So 1601:1600 is the same as 1600:1601, and thus the second response is correct.
Larry Osterman > -----Original Message----- > From: Ga�l Roualland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Alexey Melnikov > Cc: Paul Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: max+1:* fetches > > > Alexey Melnikov a �crit : > > > > Paul Smith wrote: > > > > > At 13:41 31/05/2002 +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > > > >Say a mailbox has 1000 messages in it, and the highest > UID is 1600. Which > > > >is the correct response? > > > > > > > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS > > > >1 OK FETCH completed. > > > > > > > >or > > > > > > > >1 UID FETCH 1601:* FLAGS > > > >* 1000 FETCH (UID 1600 FLAGS (\Seen)) > > > >1 OK FETCH completed. > > > > > > The first one. > > > > No, the second one, because * is translated to 1600 for UIDs. > > Yes, "*" is translated for 1600, so that gives the range 1601:1600. > But does that have sense ? (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). > > Ga�l. > > -- > Ga�l Roualland -+- [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
