As many people have already said, a UID sequence of max+1:* is equivalent to *, the maximum UID. The presumption here is that max==* but the client does not know that, which is something that can happen with a UID client.
In the case of a message sequence number, max+1:* is a syntax error. Unlike UIDs, there is no legitimate reason for a client to send max+1 for message sequence numbers because a client knows the value of *. On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:34:42 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > If this is correct, then courier-imap is wrong. Courier violates IMAP in multiple ways. I long ago gave up any hope of getting its author to fix these bugs; he has basically said that Courier deliberately violates IMAP as his protest against the protocol.
