Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g1KAVr721772 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from marvin.nildram.co.uk (marvin.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.71]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1KAVp321768 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6266 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 10:31:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.pscs.co.uk) (195.149.15.3) by marvin.nildram.co.uk with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 10:31:51 -0000 Received: from 192.168.57.101 by mail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.59.3] running VPOP3) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:20:17 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020220102135.08f915b0@lmail.pscs.co.uk> X-Sender: paul@lmail.pscs.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:22:23 +0000 To: "Jeff Stephenson" , From: Paul Smith Subject: RE: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'? In-Reply-To: <171E417EF48FB54BA3C238F08C3EEF065A6DC9@df-benji.dogfood> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V1.5.1 - Registered X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: >It does sound like a waffle. If they assign an invarient unique ID to >each message and return it as the UID of that message, then the UID of a >message should never change. If they admit to the UID changing, then >they either (1) don't do what they say they do or (2) have a bug. >Besides, once a message is in their system how do they explain their >claim that the forwarder is somehow responsible for the changed UID? >*They* are now in control of the message! Thanks for the confirmation. It confirms what I thought. Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway paul@pscs.co.uk http://www.pscs.co.uk/ Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g1JNqHF13101 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:52:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com (numenor.qualcomm.com [129.46.51.58]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1JNqG313097 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/1.0) with ESMTP id g1JNpqkQ000592; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from LLUNDBLA2.qualcomm.com (llundbla2.qualcomm.com [129.46.154.11]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/1.0) with ESMTP id g1JNpnu4022246; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:51:50 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020219154756.05300e58@jittlov.qualcomm.com> X-Sender: llundbla@jittlov.qualcomm.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:51:48 -0800 To: Paul Smith , ietf-pop3ext@imc.org From: Laurence Lundblade Subject: Re: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020219222323.08120e50@lmail.pscs.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This Statement >Basically, if you send their server a 'UIDL' command it gives you a set of >IDs for the messages, then if you ask a few hours later, it'll give you a >totally different set of IDs for the same messages. As far as I am >concerned this is a breach of the relevant bits of RFC 1939. is contradictory with this > instead, their own Unique Message ID [which does persist across sessions]. which is it? There's lots of POP servers that don't put any UIDL header into to the message header/body you get with a RETR and that's certainly OK. It would even be legal (but not nice) to add UIDL headers that have different or varying UIDL values than those returned by the UIDL command. LL Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g1JNVcn12791 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com (df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.8.8]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g1JNVb312787 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.4.14]) by df-inet1.exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4386); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:32:08 -0800 Received: from 10.197.0.60 by DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:30 -0800 Received: from BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.0.46]) by DF-YURI.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:30 -0800 Received: from df-benji.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.1.10]) by BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3590.0); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:30 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6147.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'? Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:31:29 -0800 Message-ID: <171E417EF48FB54BA3C238F08C3EEF065A6DC9@df-benji.dogfood> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'? Thread-Index: AcG5lVEmxrk2sUE0Qnm4hfYI0AsFLAABgQag From: "Jeff Stephenson" To: "Paul Smith" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2002 23:31:30.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F177DD0:01C1B99D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id g1JNVb312788 Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Smith [mailto:paul@pscs.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 2:31 PM > Basically, if you send their server a 'UIDL' command it gives > you a set of IDs for the messages, then if you ask a few hours later, > it'll give you a totally different set of IDs for the same messages. > As far as I am concerned this is a breach of the relevant bits of > RFC 1939. This is indeed bad - the UID for a message should not change. > ... they say that their server does not add a UIDL AT > ALL to any messages on their servers, they are using, > instead, their own Unique Message ID [which does persist across > sessions]. That's fine - there's nothing that says that the UID has to be stored *on* the message, as long as the same UID is returned each time you ask. If you're storing messages in a database, you might use the primary key of the message in the DB as it's UID, for example. > ... blame BTWebworld [the domain-forwarding source of most of my mail] > for ?somehow attaching changeable UIDL's which are confusing VPOP3 [our > mail software]. I have seen an X-UIDL header added to mail, which can lead to some real problems - in particular, if a server accepts that as the UID of the message, you can send it multiple different messages with the same X-UIDL header and end up with multiple messages with the same UID on the server. > Is there anything I've missed, or is it just waffle from an ISP which > doesn't know what it's talking about? It does sound like a waffle. If they assign an invarient unique ID to each message and return it as the UID of that message, then the UID of a message should never change. If they admit to the UID changing, then they either (1) don't do what they say they do or (2) have a bug. Besides, once a message is in their system how do they explain their claim that the forwarder is somehow responsible for the changed UID? *They* are now in control of the message! -- jeff Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g1JMVob12011 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:31:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from marvin.nildram.co.uk (marvin.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.71]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1JMVl312007 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:31:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1529 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 22:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.pscs.co.uk) (195.149.15.3) by marvin.nildram.co.uk with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 22:31:49 -0000 Received: from 192.168.57.101 by mail.pscs.co.uk ([192.168.59.3] running VPOP3) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:29:26 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020219222323.08120e50@lmail.pscs.co.uk> X-Sender: paul@lmail.pscs.co.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:31:12 +0000 To: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org From: Paul Smith Subject: Is there are replacement for 'UIDL'? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Server: VPOP3 Enterprise V1.5.1 - Registered X-Organisation: Paul Smith Computer Services Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I've just had an email from one of our users, which they've been sent by their ISP (British Telecom) which looks to me like total baloney (which wouldn't be unusual), but I just want to check that there's not something I've missed... Anyone out there want to read through it, and tell me that I'm correct, or that I've missed something? Basically, if you send their server a 'UIDL' command it gives you a set of IDs for the messages, then if you ask a few hours later, it'll give you a totally different set of IDs for the same messages. As far as I am concerned this is a breach of the relevant bits of RFC 1939. Their response was: BTInternet as was, now BTOpenworld, whose server actually holds my "real" mailbox acknowledge that changed UIDL's can be demonstrated [now with increasing frequency] BUT they say that their server does not add a UIDL AT ALL to any messages on their servers, they are using, instead, their own Unique Message ID [which does persist across sessions]. They say that this is acceptable under RFC POP3 supplemental extension rules and blame BTWebworld [the domain-forwarding source of most of my mail] for ?somehow attaching changeable UIDL's which are confusing VPOP3 [our mail software]. They seem to be saying that this 'Unique Message ID' is a replacement to the UIDL which they claim not to add to messages, but which their servers WILL give you if you send a UIDL command. I don't know what these 'RFC POP3 supplemental extension rules' are that they're talking about. The only thing I can think of which they could mean by 'Unique Message ID' is the 'Message-Id:' header line which is normally added by the message SENDER, not POP3 server, and which isn't *guaranteed* unique as a UIDL is. Also, it's not generally a usable replacement for UIDL since there's no quick way of getting it. Is there anything I've missed, or is it just waffle from an ISP which doesn't know what it's talking about? I don't see what's hard about assigning a constant UIDL to each message. And if they really find it as difficult as they seem to, surely they should simply not implement the UIDL command at all - after all it's optional. Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway paul@pscs.co.uk http://www.pscs.co.uk/