Re: [bincimap] Reserving subdir name or disallowing INBOX submailboxes

[Peter Teichman]

On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:

On 21 Feb 2003, Peter Teichman wrote:

I disagree with that interpretation.  The FAQ is saying that an
inability to create folders that are peers of INBOX is a client
deficiency, not that "if folders appear as subfolders of INBOX this is
due to a deficiency in the IMAP implementation of your client."

It's Courier-IMAP's FAQ first and foremost. Courier-IMAP seems to require
something from the client that is not in the unextended IMAP protocol to
provide this.

Anyway, if this thread has done nothing else it has shown that people
are very tied to their particular mail setup. My intent is not to
continue arguing the merits of either setup we're discussing, but to
inform Andreas that I would like an existing tree to be exported in the
same way it is now at the IMAP level.

So are you saying "keep it as it is", or "keep it as it is but _also_
allow root level folders"?

Either one is fine with me. I understand and respect that root level folders are a required feature for a lot of people. I probably won't use them myself, but I would certainly like to see them available to please everyone who wants them.

My mail was in reaction to your query about disallowing INBOX submailboxes altogether. Consider it a vote against that proposal. As with any of our requests, feel free to ignore it if you wish. :)

Peter