RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 5465, "The IMAP NOTIFY Extension", February 2009

Source of RFC: lemonade (app)

Errata ID: 2318

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: David Woodhouse
Date Reported: 2010-07-06
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2012-05-02

Section 3.1 says:

               (Time passes.  The client decides it wants to know about
               one more mailbox.  As the client already knows necessary
               STATUS information for all mailboxes below the Lists
               mailbox, and because "notify set status" would cause
               STATUS responses for *all* mailboxes specified in the
               NOTIFY command, including the ones for which the client
               already knows STATUS information, the client issues an
               explicit STATUS request for the mailbox to be added to
               the watch list, followed by the NOTIFY SET without the
               STATUS parameter.)
         C: d STATUS misc (UIDVALIDITY UIDNEXT MESSAGES)
         S: * STATUS misc (UIDVALIDITY 1 UIDNEXT 999)
         S: d STATUS completed

         C: e notify set (selected MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge)
            (subtree Lists MessageNew) (mailboxes misc MessageNew)
         S: e OK done

It should say:

               (Time passes.  The client decides it wants to know about
               one more mailbox.  As the client already knows necessary
               STATUS information for all mailboxes below the Lists
               mailbox, and because "notify set status" would cause
               STATUS responses for *all* mailboxes specified in the
               NOTIFY command, including the ones for which the client
               already knows STATUS information, the client issues a
               NOTIFY SET without the STATUS parameter, followed by an
               explicit STATUS request for the newly-added mailbox.
               Note that if these two commands were issued in the reverse
               order, that would be a client bug; changes may occur in
               the mailbox between the completion of the STATUS command,
               and the issuing of the NOTIFY command.  The client may
               never be notified of such changes.)
         C: d notify set (selected MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge)
            (subtree Lists MessageNew) (mailboxes misc MessageNew)
         S: d OK done

         C: e STATUS misc (UIDVALIDITY UIDNEXT MESSAGES)
         S: * STATUS misc (UIDVALIDITY 1 UIDNEXT 999)
         S: e STATUS completed

Notes:

The order of the STATUS and NOTIFY commands is changed. The original sequence is buggy, because any changes to the folder which occur between the two commands will not be noticed by the client.

Rather than just fixing it, my suggested correction also highlights the potential error -- if the authors of the RFC can do it, and especially since it's been shown as an example in the RFC until now, then it's worth making sure we highlight the problem.

Errata ID: 1694

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-02-23
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2009-07-06

Section 8, pg.18 says:

      message-event   = ( "MessageNew" [SP
                          "(" fetch-att *(SP fetch-att) ")" ] )
                      [[...]]
|                     ;; The fett-att list may only be present for the
                      ;; SELECTED/SELECTED-DELAYED mailbox filter
                      ;; (<filter-mailboxes>).

It should say:

      message-event   = ( "MessageNew" [SP
                          "(" fetch-att *(SP fetch-att) ")" ] )
                      [[...]]
|                     ;; The fetch-att list may only be present for the
                      ;; SELECTED/SELECTED-DELAYED mailbox filter
                      ;; (<filter-mailboxes>).

Notes:

Location is near bottom of page 18.

Rationale: confusing typo; s/fett/fetch/

Errata ID: 1804

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Barry Leiba
Date Reported: 2009-07-06
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2010-04-05

Section 3.1 says:

page 7
         C: b notify set status (selected MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge)
            (subtree Lists MessageNew)
Page 8
         C: e notify set (selected MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge)
            (subtree Lists MessageNew) (mailboxes misc MessageNew)

It should say:

page 7
         C: b notify set status (selected (MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge))
            (subtree Lists (MessageNew))
Page 8
         C: e notify set (selected (MessageNew (uid
            body.peek[header.fields (from to subject)]) MessageExpunge))
            (subtree Lists (MessageNew)) (mailboxes misc (MessageNew))

Notes:

Incorrect syntax in example... each "events" set needs to be in parentheses.

Errata ID: 3824

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Jan-Philipp Litza
Date Reported: 2013-12-06
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-12-06

Section 3 says:

   IMAP servers that support this extension advertise the NOTIFY
   capability.  This extension adds the NOTIFY command as defined in
   Section 5.1.

It should say:

   IMAP servers that support this extension advertise the NOTIFY
   capability.  This extension adds the NOTIFY command as defined in
   Section 3.1.

Notes:

Wrong section reference.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5465, "The IMAP NOTIFY Extension", February 2009

Source of RFC: lemonade (app)

Errata ID: 4833

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Chris Newman
Date Reported: 2016-10-17

Section 5.2, 7 says:

Section 5.2 paragraph 4:
   ...  The FETCH response(s) MUST follow any
   ESEARCH ADDTO responses.

Section 7 paragraph 2:
   Note that the EXISTS response MUST precede any FETCH responses, and
   together they MUST precede the ESEARCH response.

Notes:

As the RFC is internally inconsistent on this point, servers can have either behavior. I know of at least one deployed implementation that follows the MUST in section 7 rather than the one in section 5.2.

At this point I can't suggest specific corrected text, so this is a hold-for-document-update issue.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×