search for: rfc5819

...working with a webmail client that periodically polls unread message counts for a list of folders. It currently does this by doing a LIST or LSUB and then iterating across all of the folders, running a SEARCH ALL UNSEEN, and counting the resulting UID list. Eventually I'd like to see it using RFC5819 LIST-EXTENDED, but that requires a fair bit of work. In the mean time I'm trying to speed up the existing iteration. I've got it working using 'STATUS "mailbox" (UNSEEN)', but the language in RFC3501 suggest that this may be slow. There is a counterproposal to use RFC4731...

I am executing this command below to dovecot-2.3.5-6.cp1178.x86_64 server Notice that some status responses are missing (For folders INBOX.Archive, INBOX.spam.&-BD0EOQQ9BDkEPQ-). I wonder If this is a bug or working as expected In rfc5819 there is this: If the server runs into unexpected problems while trying to look up the STATUS information, it MAY drop the corresponding STATUS reply. In such a situation, the LIST command would still return a tagged OK reply. May be that is the reason for this response? Is it possible to find mo...

...cot at dovecot.org> wrote: > > I am executing this command below to dovecot-2.3.5-6.cp1178.x86_64 server > > Notice that some status responses are missing (For folders INBOX.Archive, INBOX.spam.&-BD0EOQQ9BDkEPQ-). I wonder If this is a bug or working as expected > > In rfc5819 there is this: > > If the server runs into unexpected problems while trying to look up > the STATUS information, it MAY drop the corresponding STATUS reply. > In such a situation, the LIST command would still return a tagged OK > reply. > > May be that is the reason for thi...

...ETURN (STATUS (MESSAGES)) * LIST (\Subscribed \NonExistent) "." "INBOX.test" For 2.1.3: . list (SUBSCRIBED) "" "*" RETURN (STATUS (MESSAGES)) * LIST (\Subscribed) "." "INBOX.test" * NO Mailbox doesn't exist: test If you don't use rfc5819 the folder will just get silently ignored by dovecot 2.1.x, but if you actually try to get the number of messages you'll get the error. It seems to me from reading rfc5258 that the 2.0.x behaviour is the correct ?? /Peter

...t dovecot.org<mailto:dovecot at dovecot.org>> wrote: I am executing this command below to dovecot-2.3.5-6.cp1178.x86_64 server Notice that some status responses are missing (For folders INBOX.Archive, INBOX.spam.&-BD0EOQQ9BDkEPQ-). I wonder If this is a bug or working as expected In rfc5819 there is this: If the server runs into unexpected problems while trying to look up the STATUS information, it MAY drop the corresponding STATUS reply. In such a situation, the LIST command would still return a tagged OK reply. May be that is the reason for this response? Is it possible to find mo...