Subject: RE: New mail?

From: "Russ Atkind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:01:04 -0400

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

> But clearly below both sessions 1
> and 2 are notified that the message is recent, which violates the sentence
> above

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!

> 
> Hmm, well I just tested this with our Cyrus server (no relation :-) ) and
it
> did this:
> 
> Opened connection #1 to INBOX - 1 recent
> Opened connection #2 to INBOX - 0 recent
> Sent mail to myself
> NOOP on #1 - 1 recent
> NOOP on #2 - 1 recent
> Sent mail to myself
> Closed #1
> NOOP on #2 - 2 recent

---

From: "Larry Osterman (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:10:03 -0700

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.

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: Russ Atkind [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 3:01 PM
To: Larry Osterman (Exchange)
Cc: IMAP Discussion List
Subject: RE: New mail?

it

---

From: "Cyrus Daboo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:21:40 -0400

> much), since session 1 did the NOOP first, but session 2 was told about
the

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

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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~