mailing list archives

hi,

i have an LSUB/LIST question.

rfc-3501(6.3.8) sayes about:
tag LIST "" ""
that the server should return the "hierarchy delimiter"

example:

C: A101 LIST "" ""
S: * LIST (\Noselect) "/" ""
S: A101 OK LIST Completed

is it also true for LSUB? the rfc sayes:

"The arguments to LSUB are in the same form as those for LIST."


i ask because some Clients send us commands like
tag lsub "" ""
what is the correct response?

cyrus behavior:
C: a LIST "" ""
S: * LIST (\Noselect) "." ""
S: a OK Completed (0.000 secs 0 calls)
C: b LSUB "" ""
C: b OK Completed (0.000 secs 1 calls)
is it correct?

bye
ThomasD

-- 
Thomas Dre?ler        Entwicklung                      thomas.dressler@1und1.de
Bei 1&1 Internet AG   Karlsruhe-Brauerstr. 48          D-76135 Karlsruhe

Vorstand: Henning Ahlert, Ralph Dommermuth, Matthias Ehrlich, Thomas Gottschlich, Matthias Greve, Robert Hoffmann, Markus Huhn, Oliver Mauss, Achim Weiss
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Michael Scheeren

Thomas Dressler wrote:

> hi,

Hi Thomas,

> i have an LSUB/LIST question.
>
> rfc-3501(6.3.8) sayes about:
> tag LIST "" ""
> that the server should return the "hierarchy delimiter"
>
> example:
>
> C: A101 LIST "" ""
> S: * LIST (\Noselect) "/" ""
> S: A101 OK LIST Completed

Correct.

> is it also true for LSUB? the rfc sayes:
>
> "The arguments to LSUB are in the same form as those for LIST."

Good question. My personal opinion is that it makes no sense to call 
LSUB "" "".

> i ask because some Clients send us commands like
> tag lsub "" ""
> what is the correct response?
>
> cyrus behavior:
> C: a LIST "" ""
> S: * LIST (\Noselect) "." ""
> S: a OK Completed (0.000 secs 0 calls)
> C: b LSUB "" ""
> C: b OK Completed (0.000 secs 1 calls)
> is it correct?
>
> bye
> ThomasD

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 10:22 +0100, Thomas Dressler wrote:
> C: b LSUB "" ""
> C: b OK Completed (0.000 secs 1 calls)
> is it correct?

The only server I know of that returns something else to this command is
Courier (which does lots of other things wrong too).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20090217/d336cebe/attachment.sig>

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> My personal opinion is that it makes no sense to call LSUB "" "".

That is my personal opinion as

>> i ask because some Clients send us commands like
>> tag lsub "" ""
>> what is the correct response?

Other than telling the user that his client is defective by design?

This abuse of LSUB (which really is only useful for maintaining USENET 
news subscriptions) all started because of a certain cretin at Netscape 
~15 years ago.  Microsoft copied the idiocy, and it persists to this day.

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 10:11 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
> This abuse of LSUB (which really is only useful for maintaining USENET 
> news subscriptions) all started because of a certain cretin at Netscape 
> ~15 years ago.  Microsoft copied the idiocy, and it persists to this day.

The main reason why I use subscriptions is to hide these mailboxes that
are forcibly created by some clients, such as "Apple Mail To Do" or
"Trash" which I really don't care to see (or use even in the clients
that create them). Wonder if it would be useful in future to be able to
mark some of these mailboxes as "internal to the client" and perhaps not
list them even with LIST.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20090217/4a10a199/attachment.sig>

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> The main reason why I use subscriptions is to hide these mailboxes that
> are forcibly created by some clients, such as "Apple Mail To Do" or
> "Trash" which I really don't care to see (or use even in the clients
> that create them). Wonder if it would be useful in future to be able to
> mark some of these mailboxes as "internal to the client" and perhaps not
> list them even with LIST.

It can be argued that the very existance of such mailboxes is an 
abomination.

I have come to believe that allowing multiple mailboxes in IMAP, as 
opposed to promoting keywords, was a mistake.  Note that this is, 
effectively, what Gmail does.

-- 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.