Hi, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Christof Drescher wrote: > > ..or you fail the fetch command for C1, forcing C1 to catch up! > > In my opinion, it is acceptable client behavior to react to a NO response > from a valid FETCH command with "Server bug detected. Please report this > bug to your server administrator. Your mail has probably been corrupted > on the server." > > Put another way: responding NO to a valid FETCH command is bad juju. > Clients don't expect it. Don't do it.
Weird. What do you say to RFC2180, 4.1.2? And 4.1.3 as well, as it requires a NO response as well? Furthermore, what IS a solution, other than keeping the messages, which is NOT WANTED on all servers? Arnt opposes NIL messages for good reasons as well (violating cache semantics). I've seen pine send warnings like "00-Jan-0000 00:00:00 +0000 is not a valid date" too... So I think there is NEED for a clarification here. What do you think about a "NO [PLEASENOOP]" message? Christof P.S.: It's quite bad to name a NO suggested by an RFC a "server bug". You did not really mean it, did you? :-(
