On 3 Jan 2004 at 16:55, Mark Crispin wrote:
> > What I want to know now is "why is the Exchange server using this
> > extension?".
>
> It is "not incorrect" for Exchange to send it without client permission.
> flag-extension is part of the rule of mbx-list-flags (via mbx-list-oflag)
> in RFC 3501, thus a server *may* send unilaterally and a client is obliged
> to handle it.
But what about this text in the RFC3501 BNF?
-------------------------- Cut here ----------------------------
flag-extension = "\" atom
; Future expansion. Client implementations
; MUST accept flag-extension flags. Server
; implementations MUST NOT generate
; flag-extension flags except as defined by
; future standard or standards-track
; revisions of this specification.
-------------------------- Cut here ----------------------------
There is nothing about RFC3348 that makes it either a standard or a
standards-track revision of RFC3501 - or even of RFC2060. Its status is
nothing more than informational.
> > Or am I simply misunderstanding this issue? Is it in fact legal for a
> > server to issue any response it wants in this case?
>
> Yes, you misunderstood;
What have I misunderstood, then? That text appears to be quite
unambiguous to me. Or has the status of RFC3348 changed?
Cheers!
-- David --
------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612
Thought for the day:
When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.
