Hi,
Huh?!? sounds good here...
>>Huh?!?!!
>>WHERE in the specification does it say that "if someone subscribes to that
>>mailbox again, then the server should list the same mailbox twice in the
>>subscribed list"?
>
>Huh?!?!! ;-)
>
>In your own RFC, 3501, 6.3.6:
>
> The SUBSCRIBE command adds the specified mailbox name to the
> server's set of "active" or "subscribed" mailboxes as returned by
> the LSUB command. This command returns a tagged OK response only
> if the subscription is successful.
>
>Adds, this means if you have foo and add foo, you get foo foo. As written,
>this is completely unambiguous. If you have a set {a,b,c} and add the set
>{a} then you get {a,b,c,a}. It doesn't make sense, but it's what it says.
Where do you read that "nonsense" in the RFC? It is just as you want it -
the "subscribed mailboxes" is a set of mailboxes; if I have "foo" and add
"foo" again, it remains "foo"... moreover, it should give an error like
"a123 NO mailbox already subscribed", afaik...
This is common sense, as I'd argue. And what Mark said. And what I read.
And - obviously - all the other server authors you mentioned yourself.
>Moreover, the LSUB command mentions nothing about removing duplicates so
>one has to assume that multiple subscribed mailboxes must be listed as
>they are.
Nope.
>This has been discussed before, and Courier-IMAP and Cyrus IMAP both
>ignore the second SUBSCRIBE to foo; I specifically remember the discussion
>being that with the current IMAP scheme, the subscribed-list can be filled
>with junk this way.
You have a reference to it? A reference where the _result_ of the discussion
is as you describe?
Christof
