On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > On a server which has such a thing as a \NoSelect mailbox with no > children, it becomes very important to respond to foo/% with foo/ since > otherwise there is no distinction from the error case of foo no existing.
Ok, now I atleast partly understand. It was this sweeping statement that seemed to include all servers (not just ones that do not support dual use mailboxes) that concerned me: >> In the case where foo has children (which was Timo's question), that makes sense. But what if foo does not have children? If the server doesn't list "foo/" in that case, then it's saying that the hierarchical name foo doesn't exist. << > The inclusion of foo/ in the case where children exists is for consistency > rather than client necessity. Since Cyrus does not have the no-children > case, it does not have this need for consistency, so it isn't surprising > that Cyrus behaves the way it does. While I think its somewhat bizarre to report a leaf mailbox that is \NoSelect and doesn't have any children, I can atleast appreciate why this is necessary in some environments. However, as you say, such a case does not apply to all servers (and since Timo's original question was about a dual-use mailbox your statement seemed much broader than I guess you intended). -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
