Mark, Thanks for the quick response and the clarification. The way we organized our shared folders a user will never have access to a child mailbox is they don't have access to the parent and they would never create folders in #shared.
Am I correct in that we'd want to modify dummy_list_work() to implement this? > CHILDREN is being replaced by LISTEXT in the IETF IMAP Extensions Working > Group. Among other desirable things, LISTEXT will require the client to > indicate that it wants children information. > > The bad thing about CHILDREN is that a server that does it must always do > it. With a UNIX filesystem, that means that you must open the directory > and examine its contents, which means a lot more work in the case of % > wildcards. > > You seem to be asking not about CHILDREN, but rather about suppressing > listing of directories which you don't have access to. If you do that, > you get into issues about why you can't create a mailbox with the name of > a list-suppressed mailbox, or what about lower-level names that you can > access. For example, suppose you can access /foo/bar/zap but not the > superior /foo/bar -- do you really want to suppress bar from being listed > in /foo? > > The point is, yes, you can do as you propose, but that isn't what CHILDREN > is about, and you may create other problems for yourself (and your users).
