MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Wed May 30 12:02:58 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Vista Mail doesn't handle \NoSelect mailboxes?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.0.99.0705301141380.5388@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
References: <alpine.OSX.0.99.0705301048240.11683@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<20070530113546.Q27473@orthanc.ca>
	<alpine.WNT.0.99.0705301141380.5388@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>
Message-ID: <7l9Pz08GyiPsgnA9Y4wR+w.md5@libertango.oryx.com>

Mark Crispin writes:
> That begs the question as to what point there is to subscribing the 
> \NoSelect name, and why Vista Mail feels that a server's refusal to 
> subscribe such a name means that it should not allow access to any 
> children of that name!
>
> Note that RFC 3501 says:
>       A server MAY validate the mailbox argument to SUBSCRIBE to verify
>       that it exists.  However, it MUST NOT unilaterally remove an
>       existing mailbox name from the subscription list even if a mailbox
>       by that name no longer exists.

Preusumably the Vista Mail developers think that having children implies 
existence, and are using SUBSCRIBE as a check for existence. AFAICT 
that isn't what you meant by "exist" when you wrote that sentence, but 
it's sort of reasonable.

I'm surprised they didn't test with UW, though. I thought UW was in 
widespread use.

Arnt

