On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Tim Showalter wrote: > I never thought about a.b c.d, but if I had, I would have made it do a.b.c.d, > not a.c.d. It might be worth fixing. I don't understand why a.c.d would be > desirable (doesn't a/b c/d => a/b/c/d on UW?).
a/b c/d => a/c/d in UW imapd. This is based upon the idea of a reference being a context to interpret c/d as opposed to necessarily a connected directory, e.g. perhaps a.b is the current selected mailbox and the user wants to open a parallel c/d . If the user wanted a connected directory, he should have done a/b/ . -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
