Re: [Imap-protocol] Re: QRESYNC Questions
Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8 Feb 2013, at 22:05, Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Bron Gondwana <[email protected]>: > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 02:06 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote: >>> On Friday, 8 February 2013 15:50:38 CEST, Pete Maclean wrote: >>> > When a client has not enabled CONDSTORE and sends an ENABLE >>> > QRESYNC command to a server that advertises QRESYNC capability, >>> > should the untagged response say "* ENABLED QRESYNC" or "* >>> > ENABLED QRESYNC CONDSTORE"? My reading of the spec tells me the >>> > latter but I observe that another server sends the former. >>> >>> I believe that both of these are compliant. I haven't found a definitive answer on this in either 5161 (ENABLE) or 5162 (QRESYNC) RFCs. >> >> Cyrus does the latter. I also agree it is the correct way. > > From a client's POV, it shouldn't matter. Right. > It is crystal clear in the RFC that QRESYNC implies CONDSTORE, so the second QRESYNC is seen in an ENABLED response a client should automatically add CONDSTORE to the current capability list. Exactly. > But the better-safe-than-sorry approach is to include both since it would workaround potentially broken clients and nobody is going to fret over the additional 10 bytes anyway. _______________________________________________ Imap-protocol mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol