On 2013-05-19 21:45, Bron Gondwana wrote:
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...
*g*
Can we please keep a sane default of (enforcing) RFC(s)-compliant
behaviour?
Default, sure.
Thanks!
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.
Fine with me - I just wanted to understood the changes you were about to
make correctly ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
--
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG
e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com
pgp: 9342 BF08
