On Thu, Oct 17, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Michael M Slusarz wrote: > Quoting Bron Gondwana <br...@fastmail.fm>: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013, at 06:23 AM, Michael M Slusarz wrote: > > > >> No. RFC 5819 [2]: > >> > >> "For each selectable mailbox matching the list pattern and selection > >> options, the server MUST return an untagged LIST response followed by > >> an untagged STATUS response containing the information requested in > >> the STATUS return option." > > > > Just wondering if the INBOX was SELECTed at the time? There's some fun > > interaction around STATUS and SELECT in RFC3501. > > Except as I read 5819, this is completely irrelevant. LIST-STATUS != > STATUS. LIST-STATUS produces STATUS-like responses, but isn't > controlled by any of the rules of the original STATUS. At least > that's how I interpret it.
Yeah, that may be - except at least in Cyrus they share quite a lot of common code. Probably in Dovecot as well. Such things are a fertile ground for bugs, particularly in IMAP with all the ugly special case corners that exceptions create over time. I wish "SELECTED" was less special in a bunch of ways. > Looking at the rest of this thread, I think we are all in agreement > that something is fishy. As OP reported, it appears to be something > specific with personal namespaces (possibly 'INBOX.' only). Yep, definitely looks fishy! Bron. -- Bron Gondwana br...@fastmail.fm
