Re: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'?

This Statement

>Basically, if you send their server a 'UIDL' command it gives you a set of 
>IDs for the messages, then if you ask a few hours later, it'll give you a 
>totally different set of IDs for the same messages. As far as I am 
>concerned this is a breach of the relevant bits of RFC 1939.

is contradictory with this

>  instead, their own Unique Message ID [which does persist across sessions].

which is it?


There's lots of POP servers that don't put any UIDL header into to the 
message header/body you get with a RETR and that's certainly OK. It would 
even be legal (but not nice) to add UIDL headers that have different or 
varying UIDL values than those returned by the UIDL command.

LL