Subject: RE: New mail?

From: "Larry Osterman (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:43:08 -0700

I thought the RFC was being recycled for advancement to draft standard, and
thus that clarifications could be put in as long as they don't result in
protocol changes?

Point very well taken - I was speaking about my implementation only - My
point is simply that PERMENANTFLAGS indicates the flags that can be changed
on the folder, but clients can change ANY of the flags at any time - they
just don't stick.  You're right that some implementations allow modification
of read-only data, and thus MUST set those flags in PERMENANTFLAGS.

Larry Osterman
Sent from larryo-laptop.dns.microsoft.com running NT5 and Outlook 98 and
Exchange Server 5.5.  Please notify the sender of any difficulties

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 3:33 PM
To: Larry Osterman (Exchange)
Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo'; Russ Atkind; IMAP Discussion List
Subject: RE: New mail?

On Mon, 11 May 1998 15:26:08 -0700, Larry Osterman (Exchange) wrote:
> Actually, now that I think about it, Mark, you might want to consider
> calling out the issues w.r.t. read-only folders more clearly in the doc -

That assumes that I can do so!

> the fact that PERMENANTFLAGS has to be empty on read-only folders wasn't
at
> all clear to me (but then again, I've shown that I'm incapable of reading
> specs before :)).

Well, uh, newsgroups show up read-only in my implementation, but \Deleted is
set in PERMANENTFLAGS and you can store it...  meaning that it's per-user.

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:46:18 -0700 (PDT)

> thus that clarifications could be put in as long as they don't result in

I was referring to my [in]ability to clarify what is already there.  I don't
have a clue as to what different could be said that would simultaneously make
matters clearer and avoid annoying someone who has a different (and currently
conforming) interpretation.

Suggestions are welcome.

I'm thinking, by the way, that the base specification should be broken up into
at least two, and probably three, documents.  One document would be a basic
"principles" document; a second would document commands and tagged responses,
and a third would document untagged responses.  The idea is to encourage
thinking about untagged responses separately than as responses to a command.