What happened to this? Your implementation seems to just ignore UNCHANGEDSINCE 0 instead of failing the update. On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 19:15 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I think the following text in section 3.2 of RFC 4551 > > > Use of UNCHANGEDSINCE with a modification sequence of 0 always > > fails if the metadata item exists. A system flag MUST always be > > considered existent, whether it was set or not. > > is broken: > > 1) It is not clear why system flags have to be special > 2) A flag existence is the same as have the flag set. Testing for flag > existence can already be done using the FETCH (FLAGS) command. > > There are two ways to fix it: > > 1). Remove the second sentence to remove special casing for system > flags. This command would allow people to test if a particular flag or a > set of flags is set on a message. However this would leave STORE -FLAGS > UNCHANGEDSINCE somewhat meaningless. > > 2). Replace the second sentence to say that this command always fail > with tagged NO for both system and user defined flags. Note that this > doesn't affect annotations. > > The rough consensus during the IMAPEXT meeting was to go with option 2. > If you have any objections to this, please speak up now. > > Regards, > Alexey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part