The following reply was made to PR imap/2837; it has been noted by GNATS. From: David Champion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mutt Developers <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: imap/2837: MYRIGHTS not understood by Mirapoint IMAP4PROXY Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:53:38 -0600
* On 2007.03.08, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Kyle Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday, March 8 at 01:17 PM, quoth David Champion: > >>This is, well, stupid. Not only do they claim ACL support, but > >>QUOTA support as well. > > > >I'm not sure I understand you. I surely don't mean to defend Mirapoint > >(we use them, and I'm not a fan by a long shot) but it is legitimate > >to offer different capabilities when authenticated than when not, no? > > True, but do they actually support ACL and QUOTA commands when you're > not authenticated? I doubt it. Essentially, they're *lying*. They're lying *if* they don't support ACL and QUOTA when they say they do. If they're lying, then I agree the server is broken, but I don't see that this changes anything -- it it were not lying and it changed its capability list upon login, then the patch would still be necessary. Is that a spec violation? I might be wrong, but I didn't think so. Anyway, you seem to be assuming that Mirapoint's server does not support QUOTA or ACL before login, but I'm not sure why that assumption is valid. > I'm philosophically more comfortable with not providing the full list > of capabilities to people who aren't authenticated than I am with Is authentication necessary for mailbox access? Does anonymous access require login as an "anonymous" user? Again, I could be wrong, but I didn't think so. -- -D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
