Re: question about the NEW and REPLIED flags

[Emmanuel <e allaud wanadoo fr>]

Le 2003.03.01 11:08, Pawel Salek a écrit :
> 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.

In fact it is useful for filtering on reception (because you want to 
filter only the newly arrived messages). But I think the filter code 
will just send the SEARCH command accordingly, so no need to have that 
in the message flag.

> 
> > Also hen trying to split the LIBBALSA_MESSAGE_FLAG_NEW flag, I
> noticed
> > this in filter.c:
> > 	case CONDITION_FLAG:
> > 	    /* 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.
> 

My fault :-/
Bye
Manu