On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote: > On 2013-05-19 15:07, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 08:36 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) > > wrote: > >> Should you make the change to allow sub-folders (of the INBOX) to in > >> fact be created (while using altnamespace), would that eliminate the > >> use > >> of \NoInferiors? > > > > Indeed it would :) > > I really, really like calling out stupid clients that do not honour > \NoInferiors though...
I guess everyone needs a hobby... > Can we please keep a sane default of (enforcing) RFC(s)-compliant > behaviour? Default, sure. > Do you suggest to remove the \NoInferiors flag for deployments with > "sub-folder of INBOX w/ altnamespace allowed" type of configurations, or > would you keep it around (and simply behave differently by honouring the > request instead of returning an error)? You kind of have to - since you want RFC-compliant clients to be able to create subfolders of Inbox. That's the whole point. Bron.
