Re: mailutils/IMAP (2)

[Alain Magloire]

> 
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:42:26AM -0500, Alain Magloire wrote:
> 
> > > The other POP3 serves are broken. ;) I don't think there is any
> > > compelling reason to not send any headers to the client, unless there
> > > is some client that depends on a Status: header not being sent, in
> > > which case its maintainers should be drawn, quartered, tarred,
> > > feathered, and then really hurt.
> > 
> > 8-)
> > I think one of the reasons is they want the clients to see all messages
> > downloaded as new messages.  Since the "Status:" or the "X-Status:" by
> > the c-client is use for the flag attributes (deleted, seen, etc ...).
> 
> I've used this to send an email with a date in the past and flagged as 
> read to make it seem as if they had gotten my request.  I love Microsoft 
> Exchange. =)

8-)
Actually, this will also work for elm and probably any other mail browsers
that save the attribute on the header part of the message.  For example
setting "Status: RO\n", will gave the same result for elm.  But what's
interesting is that some client for example imapd(UW c-client) use it for
attribute deletion so if you have "X-Status: d", the message will be deleted
when you do the CLOSE/EXPUNGE.  Meaning the imapd server will go to its
update state and since the attribute of the message is keep in the header it
suppose that a STORE FLAG (\Delete) was issued for the message.

The advantage of doing this is  for persistency, even if the message was set
deleted if you do not EXPUNGE or CLOSE, it will not be deleted.  I think mutt
is doing the same on the "Status:" by adding an 'd', deletion, 'a' or
'r'(answered) etc ...

imapd(UW c-client) also suppress a special message, this message serves
as a place holder for uivalidity and other things but I do not think
sending a message like that to an imapd will generate problem, I believe
it is discarded .. not sure.


-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on n'est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!