This is a discussion on courier imap - IMAP ; Hello, I had some test on courier-imap and it seems that there is a problem with this syntax : 03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")]) 03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server. I would like to ...
courier imap Hello,
I had some test on courier-imap and it seems that there is a problem
with this syntax :
03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
I would like to know if this is a bug with courier-imap (one more ?)
or just a syntax error due to me ?
I would say this is a bug in courier-imap because in RFC we can find :
astring = 1*ASTRING-CHAR / string
string = quoted / literal
quoted = DQUOTE *QUOTED-CHAR DQUOTE
header-fld-name = astring
header-list = "(" header-fld-name *(SP header-fld-name) ")"
which allows quoted strings for header names.
(I did not try to use unusual parts of IMAP grammar)
------------ connection log ---------------
* OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 UIDPLUS CHILDREN NAMESPACE
THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT THREAD=REFERENCES SORT QUOTA IDLE] Courier-IMAP
ready. Copyright 1998-2003 Double Precision, Inc. See COPYING for
distribution information.
01 LOGIN XXX XXXX
01 OK LOGIN Ok.
02 SELECT INBOX
* FLAGS (\Draft \Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Recent)
* OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Draft \Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen)] Limited
* 1 EXISTS
* 0 RECENT
* OK [UIDVALIDITY 1070417344] Ok
02 OK [READ-WRITE] Ok
03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE)
* 1 FETCH (UID 1 FLAGS () ENVELOPE ("Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:49:31 +0100"
"Fw: XPde Makes X11 Resemble Windows" (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) NIL NIL
NIL "<etPan.3e7e01bb.4f65d224.d67@homer>"))
03 OK FETCH completed.
03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS (References)])
* 1 FETCH (UID 1 FLAGS () ENVELOPE ("Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:49:31 +0100"
"Fw: XPde Makes X11 Resemble Windows" (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) (("DINH
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Vi=EAt_Ho=E0?=" NIL "dinh.viet.hoa" "free.fr")) NIL NIL
NIL "<etPan.3e7e01bb.4f65d224.d67@homer>") BODY[HEADER.FIELDS
("References")] {2}
)
03 OK FETCH completed.
--
DINH V. Hoa,
etPan! - newsreader, mail user agent -- http://libetpan.sf.net/etpan
Re: courier imap On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, DINH Viet Hoa wrote:
> 03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
> 03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
This in a bug in that IMAP server.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Re: courier imap Mark Crispin writes:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, DINH Viet Hoa wrote:
>> 03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
>> 03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
>
> This in a bug in that IMAP server.
For more insight on Mark Crispin's opinions, see http://www.courier-mta.org/fud/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA/zWalx9p3GYHlUOIRArDdAJ0QZLp36Wjsft+b6bz6Idd1j4QKHwCeIbrz
PnxsfvSNzVqBljoYlegylvE=
=fo5S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: courier imap Sam wrote :
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, DINH Viet Hoa wrote:
> >> 03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
> >> 03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
> >
> > This in a bug in that IMAP server.
>
> For more insight on Mark Crispin's opinions, see http://www.courier-mta.org/fud/
does it prevent you from doing something compliant ?
The new RFC 3501 with some errata made it precize the IMAP protocol.
Then, why not following that ?
Cyrus and Dovecot succeeded in being compliant, why not Courier-IMAP ?
--
DINH V. Hoa,
etPan! - newsreader, mail user agent -- http://libetpan.sf.net/etpan
Re: courier imap DINH Viet Hoa writes:
> Sam wrote :
>
>> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, DINH Viet Hoa wrote:
>> >> 03 FETCH 1 (UID FLAGS ENVELOPE BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS ("References")])
>> >> 03 NO Error in IMAP command received by server.
>> >
>> > This in a bug in that IMAP server.
>>
>> For more insight on Mark Crispin's opinions, see http://www.courier-mta.org/fud/
>
> does it prevent you from doing something compliant ?
Explain how “complaint” works when the underlying protocol is in a constant
state of flux, but carries the same protocol version.
> The new RFC 3501 with some errata made
“some”???
> it precize the IMAP protocol.
No, there are some substantive differences between that, and RFC 2060.
Meanwhile, the protocol version remained the same. So now you have two
different protocols, with the same version.
> Then, why not following that ?
Follow what? Today's “definition” of IMAP, or next week/year's?
> Cyrus and Dovecot succeeded in being compliant, why not Courier-IMAP ?
Courier-IMAP is compliant, whatever that means, taking into account the
sorry state of things.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA/zdPdx9p3GYHlUOIRAjZmAJ9UrLreUM2SxIso5TGIxheUDNrrmACeK+XI
TCWAoO1WIK3qUQeDnnbA1Ss=
=9l/u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks