On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > > Yes. IMHO, Rob is right. > > Then that the concensus is that IMAP should be less useful and ambiguous.
I don't think IMAP has anything to say on the matter, really, since the specification has remained silent on the issue. > If not, then please think about the consequences of what you are saying > vis-a-vis a mail store in which a \NoSelect name may exist without > children. I think perhaps the perception is (rightly or wrongly) that the use of a trailing hierarchy separator is a *slang* for "this is a directory-mailbox". Really, I don't see the need for a server to ever advertise a \NoSelect mailbox with no children, since it doesn't have any useful information -- the user can't do anything *but* create a mailbox there. And if a user wants to create a sub-mailbox of such a hierarchy, they can just issue a full create command to make the sub-mailbox (the server would have to create the upper levels anyway). If they want to create a message-containing mailbox where the directory already exists and the server does not support dual-use, the server can remove the directory and replace it with a flat-file mailbox (or whatever). I'm not going to argue that any given server isn't free to use this convention of trailing hierarchy separator, but we're far from making IMAP a generally less useful protocol by not using it. -Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 412.268.7456 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K- w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
