MBOX-Line: From MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU  Wed May 30 11:46:21 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Vista Mail doesn't handle \NoSelect mailboxes?
In-Reply-To: <20070530113546.Q27473@orthanc.ca>
References: <alpine.OSX.0.99.0705301048240.11683@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<20070530113546.Q27473@orthanc.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.0.99.0705301141380.5388@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> Why any client believes that it is reasonable to SUBSCRIBE a \NoSelect name 
>> escapes me.
> Why not?  It's perfectly valid to subscribe to a folder that doesn't even 
> exist.  I don't see any difference between being subscribed to a non-existent 
> folder and a \noselect folder; you can't select either one, but subscribe 
> doesn't provide a guarantee that you could anyway.

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.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

