MBOX-Line: From guenther+imap at sendmail.com  Sat Jul 23 07:18:03 2005
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Philip Guenther <guenther+imap@sendmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:36 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] DELETE 
In-Reply-To: <09f60ca2b6755b2ede231d31ee4ce55e@iki.fi> 
References: <09f60ca2b6755b2ede231d31ee4ce55e@iki.fi> 
Message-ID: <200507231418.j6NEI3MW043522@lab.smi.sendmail.com>

Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> writes:
>RFC [3501, section 6.3.4] says:
>
>       It is permitted to delete a name that has inferior hierarchical
>       names and does not have the \Noselect mailbox name attribute.  In
>       this case, all messages in that mailbox are removed, and the name
>       will acquire the \Noselect mailbox name attribute.
>
>But is it really wanted that the mailbox still exists and has 
>\Noselect? I'm guessing this should mean that when doing LIST "" %, it 
>shows up as \Noselect since it has children, but LIST "" * shouldn't 
>need to show the mailbox at all since it shows its children anyway?

Correct.  This is already corrected via an erratum.  The RFC editor
keeps errata lists for RFCs; their list for RFC 3501 can be found at
	http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=3501

However, that's slightly out of date; the current list can be snagged
from
	ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/imap/rfc3501-errata


Mark: the rfc3502-errata file in that same directory has the same
text for old vs new.  1988 -> 1998?


Philip Guenther

