34 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
34 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
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
|
|
|