Re: question about the NEW and REPLIED flags

On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:08:54 Pawel Salek wrote:
> 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.
I was looking at libbalsa_extract_new_messages in filter.c, and noticed it 
checking header->old. I then extented this case to all of balsa, so balsa 
internaly needs a recent flag. This could be done by the mailbox 

> 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.
I'll make a patch for it.
When a guy says "the last thing I'd wanna do is hurt you" it just means
he's gotta do other things first.
Fingerprint = CD4D 5601 287D F075 6F96  6157 99F9 E56A 4B08 6D06

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