MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Sun Jan 27 01:24:19 2008
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:41 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP servers with no INBOX -- any indicators?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.1.00.0801251542310.3096@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
References: <08Jan25.123007pst."58696"@synergy1.parc.xerox.com>
	<978EF551-4028-4CC6-972F-2BF8451706B2@iki.fi>
	<alpine.WNT.1.00.0801251542310.3096@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
Message-ID: <19909.1201425859.710608@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Fri Jan 25 23:44:50 2008, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> I think a lot of clients assume that INBOX exists. Easiest to just  
>> create a dummy zero-message read-only virtual INBOX.
> 
> I agree with this advice.  This very topic came up many years ago,  
> and the general concensus at the time was that clients are not out  
> of line by expecting an INBOX.  The specification very strongly  
> implies that clients may make that assumption.

I agree with the advice, but I have to say I thought that the  
consensus was to do this because of common client limitations, rather  
than with any real blessing from the spec, nor because clients were  
anything but out of line.

The specification merely says that if a mailbox looks like INBOX,  
then it is. (ie, if its path is case-insensitively equal to "INBOX",  
then it must behave like INBOX). I don't think there's anything  
stating that it must exist, nor any real implication, is there?

That said, if we revved IMAP, I'd be in favour of making the  
existence of INBOX a SHOULD, if not a MUST, on the grounds of running  
code and interop. (Or at least not against).

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

