|
|
|
|
||||||
| comp.mail.imap Discussion of IMAP-based mail systems. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Outils de la discussion |
|
|
#1 |
|
Messages: n/a
Hébergeur: |
Hi,
Is there any standard for marking emails as spam or ham on IMAP servers? I've seen "Junk" and maybe "NonJunk", but are there any others? The goal is to have cross-client compatibility. Thanks, -- Colin |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Messages: n/a
Hébergeur: |
Colin Leroy writes:
> Hi, > > Is there any standard for marking emails as spam or ham on IMAP > servers? I've seen "Junk" and maybe "NonJunk", but are there any others? > > The goal is to have cross-client compatibility. There is no established standard. $Junk and $NoJunk (or is it $Nojunk?) is the closest that you'll come to a standard. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAki75GQACgkQx9p3GYHlUOKMugCeNvwd2RoFbN zVM1xCvDdRaJJu m64AnA9ykiip8xY3VhMTVJOCxeEO4X0b =V+uw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Messages: n/a
Hébergeur: |
On 01 September 2008 at 07h09, Sam wrote:
Hi, > There is no established standard. $Junk and $NoJunk (or is it > $Nojunk?) is the closest that you'll come to a standard. I've tested Thunderbird: "Junk" and "NonJunk" (without $) Evolution: "Junk" and "NotJunk" (without $) .... Could someone tell me what their MUAs use? Thanks, -- Colin |
|
![]() |
| Outils de la discussion | |
|
|