[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1
From: |
Sergey Poznyakoff |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1 |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:14:47 +0300 |
Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> ha escrit:
> * STATUS INBOX.Trash (UNSEEN 3 )
>
> The space after 3 and before ) isn't permitted by the ABNF.
Yes, indeed. Thanks for reporting. Attached is a patch.
> 446 OK STATUS Completed
> 447 EXPUNGE
> 447 OK EXPUNGE Completed
> 448 UID SEARCH UNSEEN UNDELETED
> * SEARCH
>
> Huh! The UNSEEN flags are now gone? How did that happen?
They definitely should not have. I was unable to reproduce this,
however. Am I missing some prerequisites?
> Maybe there is some confusion between SEEN and RECENT? RECENT should be
> cleared when you re-SELECT a mailbox, but SEEN should only be changed
> when the client set flags.
Not quite so. The \Seen flag is changed implicitly by several IMAP
commands, in particular by FETCH (BODY[]). As for \Recent, it means
that this session is the first one that sees this message. I did not
find in RFC 3501 any indication that SELECT should clear this flag. In
my opinion, it should not.
Regards,
Sergey
Index: imap4d/status.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/mailutils/mailutils/imap4d/status.c,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -p -u -r1.29 status.c
--- imap4d/status.c 10 Aug 2008 21:34:49 -0000 1.29
+++ imap4d/status.c 16 Aug 2008 18:28:23 -0000
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ imap4d_status (struct imap4d_command *co
status = mu_mailbox_open (smbox, MU_STREAM_READ);
if (status == 0)
{
+ int space_sent = 0;
int i = IMAP4_ARG_2;
char *item = imap4d_tokbuf_getarg (tok, i);
@@ -122,9 +123,14 @@ imap4d_status (struct imap4d_command *co
if (count++ == 0)
util_send ("* STATUS %s (", name);
+ else if (!space_sent)
+ {
+ space_sent = 1;
+ util_send (" ");
+ }
if (!fun (smbox))
- util_send (" ");
+ space_sent = 0;
}
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, (continued)
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/15
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/15
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/15
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/15
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/15
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/16
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/16
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/16
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/16
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/16
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1,
Sergey Poznyakoff <=
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/17
- Re: [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/16
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Simon Josefsson, 2008/08/18
- [bug-mailutils] Re: IMAP protocol violation in 1.1, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2008/08/18