Re: Namespaces
Hi Lawrence, --On Thursday, April 3, 2003 3:47 PM -0500 Lawrence Greenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Many IMAP servers do the Shared Folders as a nesting inside of the | personal namespace and it works quite well. Except that it 'pollutes' the personal namespace. It also prevents adding new namespaces after the server has been setup because there is no way of knowing whether an existing user has created a personal mailbox with the same name as the new namespace that needs to be added. -- Cyrus Daboo
Re: Namespaces
I concur with Larry's opinion on this issue. - Chris Sun ONE Messaging Server begin quotation by Lawrence Greenfield on 2003/4/3 15:47 -0500: If LIST % doesn't show the shared hierarchy, many e-mail clients will hide it from the user and make the shared hierarchy inaccessible. (For instance, it would be impossible for users to access the shared hierarchy without a NAMESPACE aware client.) I would recommend naming it Shared Folders as that is what many other IMAP servers use. Many IMAP servers do the Shared Folders as a nesting inside of the personal namespace and it works quite well.
Re: Namespaces
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:07:41 -0800, Chris Newman wrote: I concur with Larry's opinion on this issue. That may be, but that does not make it correct. The entire purpose of NAMESPACE is to...have namespaces! [What a concept!] Just as the entire purpose of the LIST reference argument is to enable the client to locate itself at a particular point of the hierarchy tree without having to know the semantics of the server. It may be all fine and good to argue against namespaces and the LIST reference argument if there was only one means of doing hierarchy. But there isn't.
Re: Namespaces
As a co-authors of the NAMESPACE draft I believe I understand the purpose. Example 5.7 makes it clear that NAMESPACEs are not necessarily disjoint: http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2342.html#page-6 - Chris begin quotation by Mark Crispin on 2003/4/4 18:36 -0800: On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 18:07:41 -0800, Chris Newman wrote: I concur with Larry's opinion on this issue. That may be, but that does not make it correct. The entire purpose of NAMESPACE is to...have namespaces! [What a concept!] Just as the entire purpose of the LIST reference argument is to enable the client to locate itself at a particular point of the hierarchy tree without having to know the semantics of the server. It may be all fine and good to argue against namespaces and the LIST reference argument if there was only one means of doing hierarchy. But there isn't.
