MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Tue Apr 11 14:13:29 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] LIST Clarification
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0604111228310.3332@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
References: <443A7A2D.2070708@consilient.com> <web-35034698@mail.stalker.com>
	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0604101053530.2906@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<web-35035906@mail.stalker.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0604101441160.4904@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
	<443C0286.60200@att.com>
	<Pine.WNT.4.65.0604111228310.3332@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
Message-ID: <syMWpRdWCviH+GmTLGxvWQ.md5@libertango.oryx.com>

Mark Crispin writes:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> Our system is case sensitive. We treat 1 and 2 as the same mailbox, 
>> and 3 and 4 as the same mailbox.
>
> Of course, this is the sensible interpretation.  However, are we 
> certain that there is nobody who is nonsensical enough to treat these 
> as four different names?

I na?vely wrote code implementing the RFC as written, and discovered 
that the code treated all four as different. Rather surprised me. I 
would not bet that everyone else has avoided the mistake.

Arnt

