Question on RFC1460 (POP3)

Cam Clarke <> Sat, 17 September 1994 20:02 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03961; 17 Sep 94 16:02 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03957; 17 Sep 94 16:02 EDT
Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09882; 17 Sep 94 16:02 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA11457; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:00:07 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 15:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA12999 for <>; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 15:59:13 -0400
Received: by (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA29219 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 94 15:58:47 -0400
Received: by (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08358; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 12:55:21 +0800
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 12:55:21 +0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Cam Clarke <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)
Content-Length: 1017

	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" by the user
(assuming the mail system supports such).  The popper implementation we
have here explicitly adds/updates the "Status:" field of our Unix mail
to mark the messages that have been RETR'ed as having been read.  Is
this considered "correct", "incorrect" or "unspecified and therefore OK"?
	I ask because we have a software product that currently runs on a 
Windows PC and interacts with cc:Mail, Microsoft Mail and Lotus Notes Mail.
It examines the user's mail, applies filtering rules, and
then forwards abstracts of certain messages to a user's alpha-numeric
pager.  Since its output is an abbreviated summary of a fraction of the
mail in the inbox, our package leaves all mail marked as unread.  We're
looking at adding support for POP mail systems, and need to deal with this
situation in one manner or another.
		Thanks very much,
				-Cam Clarke