Question, and I don't know if any clients do it this way either
but wouldn't a BAD code make a client who memorised a password forget
it, as opposed to a NO error?
Coud this be why?
James A Baker wrote:
On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 08:19 US/Central, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
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".
I do not see any difference between the two. Both mean that the
command failed. The finer points of why the command failed doesn't
make a substantial difference.
<mime-attachment>
Well, I see a pretty clear difference personally. -- But then... I
suppose it does not make a "substantial difference" to any clients.
However, I do find this attitude a bit strange coming from someone
like you, who is such a stickler for following the specs in many other
ways.
*shrug* Whatever though, it's never caused a problem that I know of.
It's just been bugging me a little bit is all.
-jab
6 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Re: NO vs. BAD (w...
