Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)

Cam Clarke <cclarke@notable.com> Sun, 18 September 1994 22:22 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04010; 18 Sep 94 18:22 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04006; 18 Sep 94 18:22 EDT
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10879; 18 Sep 94 18:22 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id SAA14263; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:19:35 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.YiT=mQ:00UddMy5E5=>; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [136.161.128.3]) by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA15888 for <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:17:59 -0400
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA12948 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 94 18:13:32 -0400
Received: by notable.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14751; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:01:17 +0800
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:01:17 +0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Cam Clarke <cclarke@notable.com>
Message-Id: <9409182201.AA14751@notable.com>
To: ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu, jgm+@cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)
Content-Length: 2375

I've just read all the archives found there, and the issue I'm raising wasn't
actually addressed.  Unfortunately I described the "Status:" *implementation*
that popper uses, which apparently several people associated with the earlier
discussion about LAST and Status: and UIDL to determine whether or not
a mail message has been read.  This is related, but not quite what I'm
getting at.

What I'm suggesting is:
	1.  It would be highly desirable for the spec to say whether messages
should be marked as read in the mail system (however the mail system
does it) after they have been RETR'ed by a client.  Since I'm guessing most
clients do mark them as read, the spec change is probably to make that
explicit.
	2.  Apparently it's too late in this cycle, but it would be very useful
to have a way for a client to explicitly mark a message as unread after
having retrieved it.  Alternatively, a different retrieve command that
doesn't mark the underlying message as read would accomplish much the same
thing.  Maybe TOP could be defined to differ from RETR both in the amount
of the message returned and in how the underlying message is marked (read vs.
unread)?

Reading the archives makes me realize that I've found this mailing list a bit
late and you folks have just finished a go-around on revising RFC1460.  What's
involved in getting this idea on the agenda for the next update?
				-Cam

>From jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu Sat Sep 17 20:48 PDT 1994
>Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 17:09:28 -0400 (EDT)
>From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>;
>To: POP3 IETF Mailing List <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>;,
>        cclarke@notable.com (Cam Clarke)
>Subject: Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)
>
>cclarke@notable.com (Cam Clarke) writes:
>>         I'm wondering if any consideration has been given to whether or
>> not a POP server should mark e-mail messages as having been "read"
>
>I would suggest you read the list archives, avaliable via anonymous
>FTP to cnri.reston.va.us:/ietf-mail-archives/pop3/
>
>The decision on this is final for this go-around, the successor to
>1460 has already been approved by the IESG as a Proposed Standard.
>The only reason this list still exists is in case there is any
>discussion on draft-myers-pop3-auth-01.txt, which is currently in Last
>Call.
>
>-- 
>_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
>			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up
>
>