On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Bernhard Herzog wrote:

On 31.10.2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Right, it could (would) cause mailboxes to be listed that aren't
supposed to be listed. I think you'll also have a problem if e.g. "foo"
exists but doesn't have 'l' right and "foo/bar" exists and has 'l'
right. I think % will currently not list "foo". If it behaved correctly
it should list it as non-existing mailbox.

That case seems to work correctly with my patch.

Oh. Wonder why..

 In my tests so far, it
basically behaves exactly like you explain:

LIST % -> List "foo" as non-existing
LIST foo -> List "foo" as non-existing
LIST * -> List "foo/bar" only

Maybe there are circumstances that I didn't encounter yet, where it does
indeed fail.

Well, the main failure is that if the child mailboxes aren't listable, the parent mailbox shouldn't be listed either. Like if I share a secret/dovecot corp/contracts/google/october mailbox to someone then other people really shouldn't be seeing secret/dovecot corp/contracts/ google :)

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to