Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command

[Bill Shannon <[e-mail]>]

I haven't heard from anyone else so I'm assuming the consensus opinion
is that the UIDL capability can't change based on authentication.

Thanks.

Bill Shannon wrote on 11/14/12 15:03:
> Well, that was my initial reading as well, and I'd be happy with that
> interpretation, but the spec says:
> 
>    If a capability is announced in both states, but the argument might
>    differ after authentication, this possibility MUST be stated in the
>    capability description.
> 
>    (These requirements allow a client to issue only one CAPA command if
>    it does not use any TRANSACTION-only capabilities, or any
>    capabilities whose values may differ after authentication.)
> 
> Note that it talks about "arguments" or "values", not about whether
> the capability itself might be present or not.
> 
> It's that ambiguity that caused me to ask, just to be sure...
> 
> Chris Newman wrote on 11/14/12 14:02:
>> Section 6.8 says:
>>
>> Announced states / possible differences:
>> both / no
>>
>> So it looks like you're not allowed by RFC 2994's CAPA registration for UIDL
>> advertisement to change after authentication.
>>
>>         - Chris
>>
>> --On November 14, 2012 13:14:25 -0800 Bill Shannon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Does RFC 2994 allow the UIDL capability to be missing from a CAPA
>>> response before authentication, but included in a CAPA response
>>> after authentication?
>>
>