MBOX-Line: From tony at att.com  Tue Apr 11 12:24:54 2006
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:37 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] LIST Clarification
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.65.0604101441160.4904@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>
Message-ID: <443C0286.60200@att.com>

Our system is case sensitive. We treat 1 and 2 as the same mailbox, and
3 and 4 as the same mailbox.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Mark Crispin wrote:
>> More,
>> a) what about:
>> INBOX/mailbox
>> InBox/mailbox
>> INBOX/mailBOX
>> InBox/mailBOX
>> (our interpretation - 1 and 2 are the same mailbox, 3 and 4 are the
>> same mailbox, they all are the same mailbox on a case-insensitive
>> system).
> 
> My interpretation:
> 
> I agree that they are all the same mailbox on a case-insensitive system.
> 
> I don't know how many mailboxes (2 or 4) it may be on a case-sensitive
> system; I think that it is implementation-dependent.  Had I thought
> about it at the time, I would have prohibited INBOX from being a
> "dual-use" name.  I agree that your interpretation is superior.


