Mark Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Agreed. What is being discussed is whether INBOX/ must also be returned.
Well, is there anything that says it must? I find no wording to that effect.
This is what Rob has been saying all along.
Yes. IMHO, Rob is right.
Then that the concensus is that IMAP should be less useful and ambiguous.
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.
After discussing this with Rob offline, I finally understand (I think) what you are driving at. Maybe I'm just being thick, but why should a client have to worry about the difference between foo and foo/? Do mainstream clients (other than Pine) actually understand and care about the difference?
Why should a client have to create foo/ as a placeholder before creating foo/bar? Why not just create foo/bar in the first place?
Isn't this like requiring a "comp" and "comp.mail" group/mailbox before creating "comp.mail.imap"?
Maybe I'm just too clueless to fully understand why a server needs to provide such subtle, implementation specific, info to the client.
-- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
