Re: Childless mix INBOX lacking \HasNoChildren?

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Joel Reicher wrote:
> If I am sure none of my
> users will work around the server to create a child of INBOX is there
> anything wrong with imapd reporting \NoInferiors for INBOX unconditionally?
> I can see the code in dummy_scan() for this.

Yes.  Just pull that code that tests for a dual-use format, and do the 
obvious simple version.

The original code (which is what you propose reverting to) was right and 
should have been left alone.  Someone deliberately went around the 
protocol-stated restriction; and then complained that his client core 
dumped when it got LIST results that reported a \NoInferiors INBOX along 
with children of INBOX.  I gave in to his complaint.  This email thread is 
my punishment for not taking a hard line and saying "no".

Sigh.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw <at> u.washington.edu
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw