[Dovecot] FETCH FLAGS in response to SORT and SEARCH commands

[Michael Doppler]

Hi,

I am getting IMAP FETCH FLAGS in response to SORT and SEARCH commands  
for my INBOX. See the following transcript between dovecot (marked  
with S:) and an imap client (marked with C:) for an example SEARCH  
command.

C: A004 UID SEARCH CHARSET ISO-8859-1 ALL TEXT {4}
C: test
S: + OK
S: * SEARCH 5 13 20 21 22 23 24 30 37 39 56 64 77 82 93 94 96 103 109  
110 118 135 136 158 160 165 171 174 175 177 180 181 190 198 207 209  
210 212 220 221 233 237 242 248 250 253 256 257 261 270 278 281 294  
296 301 302 303 304 305 309 310 317 318 320 323 330 331 333 342 343  
352 355 356 357 365 387 390 394 407 412 416 426 428 432 437 450 451  
454 459 460 465 468 470 477 482 484 488 493 500 522 524 526 529 530  
537 541 571 575 580 597 604 666 689 730 738 741 742 743 746 750 751  
752 753 754 755 758 759 760 762 763 764 766 767 768 770 772 773 782  
788 797 798 829 831 832 835 836 842 854 863 864 865 866 868 869 871  
874 880 881 891 943 944 945 954 957 962 963 964 965 968 970 971 973  
974 985 986 987
S: * 307 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 381 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 971 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk NonJunk JunkRecorded))
S: * 307 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 381 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 971 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk NonJunk JunkRecorded))
S: * 971 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk NonJunk JunkRecorded))
S: * 307 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 381 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk $MDNSent))
S: * 971 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen $NotJunk NonJunk JunkRecorded))
S: A004 OK Search completed

Mozilla Thunderbird and Apple Mail seem to be able to cope with this,  
but squirrelmail chokes when it receives those flags.

I get them only for my INBOX and not for other folders like sent  
mail, so the behaivour seems to depend on the content of the folder.  
It occurrs at least with dovecot 1.0alpha4 and 1.0alpha5 using  
maildir. I have not tested other versions / mbox format.

Is this behaviour expected?

regards,
Michael