On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Richard Bang wrote: > Just for my upended worth. My implementation will never return either > /Marked or /Unmarked.
I see. Do you believe that deliberately thumbing your nose at the protocol, as you say you will do, is the way to build interoperability or create quality software? This is the sort of bad behavior that Microsoft is accused of doing. > This is because when I was testing with multiple concurrent connected > clients (as I like to work) it screwed up the new message counts. So, you tested with a buggy client, and concluded that because of that client's bug, you should create a bug in your own server. > If the definition of the protocol tells a client that it can ignore a > mailbox simply because a different client saw the mailbox then there is > a problem with the protocol. It is a remarkably bad idea to half-listen to a discussion, pick up on a single phrase, and jump to conclusions based upon that phrase. You completely misunderstood what was being discussed. I am willing to explain it to you *if* you will give me the courtesy of listening. Will you listen? > It would be nice if there were a way to monitor a none selected mailbox > for flag changes and message arrivals. There is work in progress on that vein. It does not expedite new facilities when wars have to be fought on existing facilities. Do the existing facilities according to specification. Do not inflict yet another non-interoperable server implementation on the world. > I realise these don't really apply to something like pine, but to be > honest if I had to use pine as my mail client I would probably give up > using email :-) You probably have never used Pine, which probably explains why you made your comments. You are not on a path that will lead you towards producing a good quality IMAP server. It would be prudent for you to reconsider some of your decisions. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
