Subject: RE: New mail?

From: "Larry Osterman (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:26:08 -0700

Ok. that's what I remember the Cyrus server doing when this issue came up in
Exchange - we used do do a different (but similarly broken) thing, and our
testers quoted the relevant section of the doc and got me to change my code.

Fortunately, this came up shortly after I had to rewrite the flags handling
to get read-only folders to work correctly (NOTE TO SERVER IMPLEMENTORS -
GETTING READ ONLY FOLDERS TO WORK IS VERY TRICKY), so it wasn't a big deal.

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 -
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 :)).

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: Cyrus Daboo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 3:22 PM
To: Russ Atkind; Larry Osterman (Exchange)
Cc: IMAP Discussion List
Subject: RE: New mail?

--On Monday, May 11, 1998, 6:01 PM -0400 "Russ Atkind"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> Uh-uh. Look at it again.  Only #2 was notified, because #1's one recent
> message was the one present at the initial SELECT.  This behavior is
exactly
> what the spec says!

--On Monday, May 11, 1998, 3:10 PM -0700 "Larry Osterman (Exchange)"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> Woops, Russ is right, I misread the trace below (didn't notice the 1
recent
> on the first SELECT).  However I still claim this is broken (but not as
> much), since session 1 did the NOOP first, but session 2 was told about
the
> recent message.

Woops, sorry I misstyped the trace! I've redone it and here it is again,
this time correct (and double-checked):

Opened connection #1 to INBOX - 1 recent
Opened connection #2 to INBOX - 0 recent
Sent mail to myself
NOOP on #1 - 2 recent
NOOP on #2 - 1 recent
Sent mail to myself
Closed #1
NOOP on #2 - 2 recent

This does convey the meaning I put on the original trace i.e. the recent
value propagates to both open sessions.

--On Monday, May 11, 1998, 2:18 PM -0700 "Larry Osterman (Exchange)"
<[email-masked]> wrote: 

> I believe this indicates a bug in the Cyrus server.  I concur totally with
> Barry's interpretation of the behavior of the \Recent flag.  I believe
that
> the language in 2.3.2 at the top of page 9 of RFC2060 makes this the only
> reasonable interpretation of the \Recent flag, and Cyrus isn't following
it.
> In particular, the language indicates "This session is the first session
to
> have been notified about this message".  But clearly below both sessions 1
> and 2 are notified that the message is recent, which violates the sentence
> above

Arguably, the next paragraph allows a 'legal' way round this if it is not
possible to determine which is the 'first' session to be notified. It states
that any session SHOULD consider all 'new' messages as recent in such cases.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cyrus Daboo                                 <mailto:[email-masked]>
Cyrusoft International, Inc.                  <http://www.cyrusoft.com>
Voice: +1 412 605 0499                             Fax: +1 412 605 0705
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Proud Purveyors of Mulberry: Internet Mail from the Ground Up
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:32:35 -0700 (PDT)

> calling out the issues w.r.t. read-only folders more clearly in the doc -

That assumes that I can do so!

> all clear to me (but then again, I've shown that I'm incapable of reading

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.