Re: [Imap-protocol] Courier bug(?)

On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 22:20 +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> On 21 Jan 2013 21:50, "Michael M Slusarz" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > OR... is the fact that this is a FLAGS response unattached to the
> given UID query mean that this is OK?  In other words... since FLAGS
> wasn't explicitly requested by the FETCH command, is this untagged
> response legal as a unilateral flag change response sent by the
> server, regardless of the fact that it appears during an active UID
> command?  This doesn't seem correct, and it can be argued that the
> BODY[HEADER] access itself "caused" the FLAGS FETCH response anyway.
> 
> Right, this is indeed a unilaterally sent FETCH, and it wasn't really
> caused by the other FETCH - it's just been batched until a command was
> in progress. Or maybe it just happens to have been sent at the same
> time.
> 
> In practise, it's likely that the IMAP server explicitly checked flag
> changes when it received the FETCH, but that's an implementation
> detail.
> 
> In any case, I don't think this is a bug.

Assuming it was unilaterally sent FETCH and not a normal reply for
setting the \Seen flag by UID FETCH BODY[], I agree. Especially when
NOTIFY is enabled this won't even be possible to avoid.

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol