wasm-demo/demo/ermis-f/imap-protocol/cur/1600095124.22917.mbox:2,S

47 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext

MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net Wed Apr 11 03:51:51 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] ACL: GETACL and "always granted" rights
In-Reply-To: <1766087308.133811176240507094.JavaMail.root@dogfood.liquidsys.com>
References: <1766087308.133811176240507094.JavaMail.root@dogfood.liquidsys.com>
Message-ID: <6701.1176288711.978094@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
On Tue Apr 10 22:28:27 2007, Dan Karp wrote:
> If a user has rights that "will always be granted" on a mailbox
> (e.g. that show up in the first rights set in a LISTRIGHTS untagged
> response), is that user/rights pair to be listed in the GETACL
> response on that mailbox?
>
>
In principle, that would be a reasonable reading of RFC4314, and you
would not be non-compliant for doing so.
In practise, it might be silly under some circumstances.
The LISTRIGHTS response tells you two things - and note I'm
deliberately using a different wording:
1) The groups of rights that may be granted to the identifier.
2) The set of inalienable rights the identifier implicitly has.
I'd personally say that you should examine *why* the identifiers have
these implicit rights, and decide on that basis whether to include
them in the ACL - and in some cases, whether to admit they have
implicit rights in LISTRIGHTS.
I don't think you'd confuse clients by having a degree of discrepency
between LISTRIGHTS and GETACL, but you might confuse clients by
including entries in the ACL if they're not really needed. (For
example, Thunderbird decides whether a mailbox is shared according to
the contents of the ACL.)
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade