MBOX-Line: From mrc+uw at Panda.COM  Wed Nov 18 12:18:44 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+uw@Panda.COM>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] wildcards in other users' namespace
In-Reply-To: <1258574152.3022.695.camel@timo-desktop>
References: <2134052040.817.1258573414683.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
	<1258574152.3022.695.camel@timo-desktop>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0911181212090.244@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Actually I think the whole idea of listing other users' shared mailboxes
> without having to explicitly opt-in isn't such a good idea. It's way too
> easy to spam others by just sharing your mailboxes to them.

This is my point in a current discussion.

Also, I can think of a case where "accessible" and "published" should be 
very different.  The fact that something can be listed does not mean that 
it should be published.

Consider that I am organizing a class reunion, and have created an account 
and a series of mailboxes in my private space for that purpose.  Since I 
don't know everybody's id (or even everybody) in the far-flung class, I 
give access to anyone.  I then pass on the word to those people I know 
that "the class reunion information is in the mrc-class account", and this 
is passed on by these to others.

Should these mailboxes be published to the world due to the anyone rights, 
and thus show up in everybody's list of mailboxes?  Or, as I contend, just 
to those who know to look in the mrc-class account?

Thus, I consider "publishing to shared" and "making accessible via access 
control" to be two separate things, and that the +l right by itself does 
not constitute publication.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

