Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Take a look at this funny IMAP transmission between Binc IMAP 1.2.10 and
>Pine 4.58. Who's at fault here, Binc or Pine?
..
>00000008 FETCH 1 BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("")]
>* 1 FETCH (BODY[HEADER.FIELDS ()] {2}
>
>)
>00000008 OK FETCH completed
While the FETCH request seems pointless**, it matches the syntax.
Binc's response fails to do so: the list after HEADER.FIELDS must
contain at least one atom or string:
section-msgtext = "HEADER" / "HEADER.FIELDS" [".NOT"] SP header-list /
"TEXT"
header-list = "(" header-fld-name *(SP header-fld-name) ")"
header-fld-name = astring
Philip Guenther
** It'll always provoke a response of either an empty line or nothing
at all, the latter occuring only when the message is all header,
lacking even the blank-line after the header. In this case, the
previous BODYSTRUCTURE response showing the body to have 29 octects
in 2 lines has already answered the question of whether the blank-line
is there.
