On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Dan Mills wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 05:07 PM, Dan Mills wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 03:42 PM, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
.foo -> .foo ..foo -> .foo
How does that sound?
Why is that special-cased?
I see why - to differentiate it from "foo", which would map to "foo".
I am not terribly pleased with the solution, but I don't see a clean way to do it, either.
But why is there any need to do it at all?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. The need to differentiate "foo" from ".foo" seems obvious enough :-)
Maybe you mean the need to allow dots to be used at all. I think the reason is this-
* Dots have to be allowed in the filesystem (Maildir++ legacy).
* Dots are not required in the filesystem (User requested, hence IMAPdir).
* There is a need to disambiguate the same mailbox name with and without a leading dot, then.
I think it would be valid to specify in the IMAPdir spec that the agent creating the mailbox needs to check for the same mailbox with/without the leading dot, and refuse to create it if it's already there. I don't think that would be the best solution, though--I like Andy's suggestion better.
The only alternative I can think of is Charlie Bradie's suggestion of simply banning dots in mailbox names, which I was in favor of at first.
Brady, please. What a terrible thing to do on St Patrick's Day!
Yow, so sorry :-P I guess I'll have to drink a couple of extra guinesses to make up for that!
But that just creates more problems when the user decides to manually move in an mbox file called "foo" into the IMAPdir.
The current suggestion has no support for mbox files. But even if it did -
why is there any need for bincimap to support manually moved files?
There are an infinite numbers of ways to break bincimap by adding,
deleting or modifying the files that bincimap needs to work - that might
just be one of them.
My comments are the same with maildirs, really. But the IMAPdir draft definitely mentions mbox files: http://www.bincimap.andreas.hanssen.name/bincimap-imapdir.html
My comments were about the IMAPdir structure and its intended interpretation, not about policy imposed by binc imap. The hole that I pointed out in IMAPdir needs to be addressed in the IMAPdir spec, not as policy in binc imap.
So no, binc imap doesn't have to support manually moved files. But IMAPdir does.
-Dan
