On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: > While I think its somewhat bizarre to report a leaf mailbox that is > \NoSelect and doesn't have any children, I can atleast appreciate why this > is necessary in some environments. However, as you say, such a case does > not apply to all servers (and since Timo's original question was about a > dual-use mailbox your statement seemed much broader than I guess you > intended).
OK, so we agree that it is necessary behavior in some environments. Do we also agree that even in those environments in which it is unnecessary and arguably extraneous, it is harmless? I agree that there is probably no reason for a client to care whether foo/ is returned for foo/% when there are children; and thus, if the server does not have the \NoSelect w/ no children case, it's probably alright if the server omits foo/ from the list. I'm not certain that I fully understand Timo's environment, so the conservative approach is to say "do it". This sounds like we may have the start of material for yet another installation of an IMAP folklore (a.k.a. "implementation recommendations") document. It seems that there are quite a few questions which don't become clear without considering environments other than your own. It's probably unreasonable to make all implementors think all of these through. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
