On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:50:22 +0100 (CET), Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > >* STATUS "new" (messages 3 uidnext 0 uidvalidity 0) > So even if it isn't too clear _why_ a client would want to do this, it's > obviously a "case" that is not handled in the rfc in any way.
Huh? The RFC is very specific about the fact that that response violates IMAP. This is a server bug. I see no reason why a client wouldn't want to do a STATUS on a mailbox, even on one which it hasn't seen before. This has to work. > Is it worth the effort for the STATUS command to parse and "uidify" a > mailbox? That's completely an implementation issue. Whatever the implementation does is alright, as long as it complies with IMAP. That STATUS response above does not.
