Mark Crispin wrote: > The IMAP protocol has a mechanism to determine whether a mailbox is dual-use > or not. > > Broken clients do not use this mechanism and instead assume that all mailboxes > are dual-use. They break in wierd ways when a mailbox is not dual use. Some > even require the user to set a configuration option to say "this server does > not have dual-use mailboxes" which half-works to undo the brokenness. > > Good clients understand when a mailbox is dual-use and when it is not. > However, when a mailbox is dual-use, it becomes more complicated for the user.
Ok, but rigth now the user has to know that he has to add a / when he want's to create a directory (filesystem level speaking). With default dual-use mailboxes he can just go on and use the system as he expects it to function. > The user can no longer select a name and have it open a list of subordinate > names (directory) or open a message browser (mailbox). Instead, the user now > has to choose between commands to either open the name as a directory or open > it as mailbox. > > The result is extra complexity and confusion for the user. We see this > frequently in Pine when the user switches servers to a server. Suddenly, the > user is confronted with usage complexity that he never experienced before Ok this might be true for Pine, but we don't need to debate about it's limited user interface here. Pine has it's use, in fact I love it when I only have a secure shell connection, but is not the cure for all our problems. > The design of the UW server is to maintain compatibility with UNIX conventions > and traditions. Above all, the traditional UNIX format support is focused on > compatibility with the past 30 years of UNIX mail history. mbx, although not > a legacy format, by design shares many of the same attributes including > compatible naming with traditional UNIX format. So you say, you'll never include the dual use stuff because you think it is wrong despite a lot of people would use/need it? Or would you accept it as a config option as I suggested in my last mail? > There are other servers which do not have the goal of compatibility with UNIX > conventions and traditions. If incompatibility is a closer match to your > needs, then you should consider those servers. I can't. I have to stick with UW-IMAP (did I get it right this time?) because it's my only possibility right now to do virtual imap in combination with linuxconf. Sorry Mr. IMAP, but that's just a view from the day to day computing front. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock
