Re: question about the NEW and REPLIED flags

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Bart Visscher wrote:
> The LIBBALSA_MESSAGE_FLAG_NEW is being used for 2 things, the IMAP SEEN 
> flag and the IMAP RECENT flag, are there objections to split it up?

No problem. LIBBALSA_MESSAGE_FLAG_NEW corresponds really to negated IMAP 
SEEN flag. RECENT IMAP flag is a bit special. For example, when there are 
several clients accessing same mailbox, only one of them will see RECENT. 
One might even consider ignoring it in a first approximation.

> Also hen trying to split the LIBBALSA_MESSAGE_FLAG_NEW flag, I noticed 
> this in filter.c:
> 	    /* NOTE : nothing about replied flag in the IMAP protocol,
> 	       so continue if only this flag is present */
> 	    if (!(cond->match.flags & ~LIBBALSA_MESSAGE_FLAG_REPLIED))
> 		continue;
> But looking at rfc2060 I find this:
>          \Answered   Message has been answered
> Should that be changed?

True: the comment in the code is false.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]