On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Mark Crispin wrote: >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 never said this particular server's response wasn't wrong - I was referring to "status on an unseen mailbox". >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. I agree. >> 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. Ok. Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen
