Subject: Name attributes in LSUB responses

From: "Russ Atkind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:57:47 -0400

For mailboxes that do exist, is it required that an LSUB response contain
the same list of name attributes as the LIST response for the same mailbox? 
In testing the big-name servers I have observed some widely varying
behaviors.

Also, except for \Marked and \Unmarked whose behavior is specifically
defined, is it required that the name attributes in LIST responses contain
complete and accurate information?  In other words, is it required that a
mailbox that acts as \Noinferiors be LISTed as such?

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 1998 01:38:19 -0400

> Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:57:47 -0400
> From: "Russ Atkind" <[email-masked]>
> 

So I believe what Russ is diplomatically alluding to is that is that Cyrus,
under some circumstances, can do this:

C: . lsub "" %
S: * LSUB (\Noselect) "." INBOX
S: . OK Completed
C: . list "" %
S: * LIST () "." INBOX
S: . OK Completed

The circumstances are simple: Have a mailbox called "INBOX", then
unsubscribe to it.  (Someone put the "anonymous" user on
cyrus.andrew.cmu.edu in this state.)

While I agree that this is counterintuitive, misleading, and very very
nasty, it would be absolutely wrong for the server to say
S: . LSUB () "." INBOX
if the user is not actually subscribed to INBOX.

-- 
Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 08:27:10 -0700 (PDT)

This is broken behavior.  LSUB should not return INBOX if the user is not
subscribed to it.  You may be confused by the rule in the last paragraph of
section 6.3.8, but that rule explicitly applies to LIST.  LSUB is 6.3.9.

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 May 1998 20:04:18 -0400

> section 6.3.8, but that rule explicitly applies to LIST.  LSUB is 6.3.9.

I don't believe that paragraph is the relavant one.  Are you referring to
the last paragraph on page 31?

The problem is that I believe a client doing LSUB "" % wants to be told
about matching mailboxes that have children.  A hierarchial browser would
need to know about these.

Is this not the case?

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:12:55 -0700 (PDT)

> need to know about these.

Hmm.  I don't know.  I don't return anything at all in that case.

I suspect that "%" isn't particularly useful with LSUB.

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:57:16 -0600 (MDT)

> I suspect that "%" isn't particularly useful with LSUB.

It's very useful. It lets you build flat folder namespaces -- a big
performance win on some servers.