6 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users[courier-users] NO vs. BAD (was Re: u...
FromSent OnAttachments
Comrade BurnoutJun 13, 2003 10:36 am 
James A BakerJun 13, 2003 9:42 pm 
Sam VarshavchikJun 14, 2003 6:20 am 
James A BakerJun 14, 2003 9:30 am 
E RJun 14, 2003 10:49 am 
James A BakerJun 14, 2003 1:56 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:[courier-users] NO vs. BAD (was Re: user authentication problem)Actions...
From:James A Baker (jaba@mac.com)
Date:Jun 13, 2003 9:42:51 pm
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 12:36 US/Central, Comrade Burnout wrote:

[blah, blah] * OK Courier-IMAP ready. Copyright 1998-2002 Double Precision, Inc. See COPYING for distribution information. LOGIN=in@industrialnation.com LOGIN=in@industrialnation.com NO Error in IMAP command received by server. A001 LOGIN in@industrialnation.com test1123 A001 NO Login failed.

[more stuff]

As an aside... (and something I've been meaning to ask...)

Oh, Sa-a-a-a-am...?

... Why does Courier reply with "NO Error in IMAP command...." in some protocol error situations like this, rather than with a "BAD" message? "NO" responses are supposed to be used for "operational errors" not "protocol errors".

-jab