General advice: ...
| Title | Description | Reference | Observed in | Reported | Status | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Note: "[...] do not attempt to deduce command syntax from the command section alone; instead refer to the Formal Syntax section."
| Title | Description | Reference | Observed in | Reported | Status | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero UID | UID MUST be >= 1 but was 0 |
uniqueid = nz-number RFC 3501 |
Outlook | No | Unknown | |
| Negative line length | body-fld-lines should be >= 0 and < 4_294_967_296 but was -1 |
body-fld-lines = number RFC 3501 |
Dovecot | No | Unknown | |
Missing text |
HIGHESTMODSEQ status should have a text but didn't |
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7162 section 7 | Gmail | Yes | Open | Examples in RFC are wrong. Errata? |
| CHANGEDSINCE 0 | CHANGEDSINCE 0 was sent for an account on a mail server that was update to support CONDSTORE (did not have the CONDSTORE extension before). CHANGEDSINCE should have been omitted from the command. | chgsince-fetch-mod rfc/7162:2479 mod-sequence-value rfc/7162:2551 | iPhone Mail (16.5.1) | Yes | Open |
codeandtextdidn't play well ...
Greeting { kind: Ok, code: None, text: "[FOO] ..." }
... will result in ...
* OK [FOO] ...
... and be interpreted like ...
Greeting { kind: Ok, code: Foo, text: "..." }
And ...
Greeting { kind: Ok, code: None, text: "[...]" }
... can't be expressed.
- Unclear command continuation response(s).
- When is base64 allowed in command continuation response?
`+ Rm9vbw==` could be interpreted as "Fooo" (base64) or just "Rm9vbw==" (text).
Created with https://www.tablesgenerator.com/markdown_tables