Changing LIST (again)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)]

On 2013-05-19 21:45, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) 
> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-19 15:07, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 19, 2013, at 08:36 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)
>> > wrote:
>> >> Should you make the change to allow sub-folders (of the INBOX) to in
>> >> fact be created (while using altnamespace), would that eliminate the
>> >> use
>> >> of \NoInferiors?
>> >
>> > Indeed it would :)
>> 
>> I really, really like calling out stupid clients that do not honour
>> \NoInferiors though...
> 
> I guess everyone needs a hobby...
> 

*g*

>> Can we please keep a sane default of (enforcing) RFC(s)-compliant
>> behaviour?
> 
> Default, sure.
> 

Thanks!

>> Do you suggest to remove the \NoInferiors flag for deployments with
>> "sub-folder of INBOX w/ altnamespace allowed" type of configurations, 
>> or
>> would you keep it around (and simply behave differently by honouring 
>> the
>> request instead of returning an error)?
> 
> You kind of have to - since you want RFC-compliant clients to be able 
> to
> create subfolders of Inbox.  That's the whole point.
> 

Fine with me - I just wanted to understood the changes you were about to 
make correctly ;-)

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

-- 
Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG

e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com
m: +44 74 2516 3817
w: http://www.kolabsys.com

pgp: 9342 BF08