Superior hierarchical mailbox creation....

[nikhil BS]

Hi all,
We are developing a client for IMAP server.
I tried to create mailbox of the form x.y.z where '.' is the heirarchy
separator.
According to the RFC,

--
If the server's hierarchy separator character appears elsewhere in
      the name, the server SHOULD create any superior hierarchical names
      that are needed for the CREATE command to be successfully
      completed.  In other words, an attempt to create "foo/bar/zap" on
      a server in which "/" is the hierarchy separator character SHOULD
      create foo/ and foo/bar/ if they do not already exist
--

But the mailbox x.y.z was created and not the superior hierarchical
mailboxes x, x.y weren't.
This is the output of the LIST command...

--
o list "" *
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "INBOX"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Drafts"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Sent"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "INBOX.Trash"
* LIST (\NonExistent \HasNoChildren) "." "INBOXINBOX.Drafts"
* LIST (\NonExistent \HasNoChildren) "." "INBOXINBOX.Sent"
* LIST (\NonExistent \HasNoChildren) "." "INBOXINBOX.Trash"
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "a"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "a.b.c"
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "a.c.e"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "a.c.e.f"
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "abcd"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "abcd.hello"
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "abcnddd"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "abcnddd.hai"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "asdf"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "haha"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "new"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "p.q.ew"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "snilmail"
* LIST (\HasChildren) "." "user.abhi"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "user.abhi.Drafts"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "user.abhi.Sent"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "user.abhi.Trash"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "user.abhi.new"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "user.damodar"
* LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "x.y.z"
o OK Completed (0.000 secs 28 calls)
--

As we can see from the output, we have the same response for the creation of
the mailbox 'p.q.ew'.
Is this an error in our configuration of Cyrus or is that part of the RFC
interpreted differently.

Regards
Nikhil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/mailman/private/info-cyrus/attachments/20060228/eb65d50a/attachment.html