Re: [Imap-protocol] rfc-5258 LIST Command Extensions

On 24.10.2012, at 22.29, Thomas Dressler wrote:

> i am a litle bit confused about some examples in rfc-5258 (page 17):
> C: D03 LIST (RECURSIVEMATCH SUBSCRIBED) "" "*"
> S: * LIST () "/" "baz2" ("CHILDINFO" ("SUBSCRIBED"))
..
> S: D03 OK done
> 
> baz2 is returned, and baz2 is not supscribed.

I don't think it should have been included. It's not entirely wrong for the server to do it, but it's unnecessary when listing a "*". When listing "%" it would have been necessary, otherwise the client wouldn't have known of its children.

> i miss the following response:
> * LIST (\NonExistent) "/" qux2 ("CHILDINFO" ("SUBSCRIBED"))

This would also need to be returned for %, but for * it's optional (and better if not returned).

> in wich situations should "LIST (RECURSIVEMATCH SUBSCRIBED)" return an mailbox,
> which is not subscribed?

When the pattern matches an unsubscribed mailbox, which has subscribed children that don't match the pattern. That's the optimal case. Servers can somewhat easily optimize the % and * cases, but for others it would pretty much require to save the results in a tree structure and based on that figure out which nodes to return to client. If that's too much work, I think it's okay for the server to just return more than necessary (Dovecot does that with some settings).

> are there some rfc-conform implementations, for testing/orientating?

I think Dovecot v2.1 returns everything optimally with Maildir backend. See also imaptest's listext test: http://hg.dovecot.org/imaptest/file/62ac822588f0/src/tests/listext

> the second example in rfc-5819 is an invalid commandline (there must be an SP before mailbox):
> C: A02 LIST (SUBSCRIBED RECURSIVEMATCH)"" % RETURN (STATUS (MESSAGES))

You could report this as RFC errata, and maybe the example change also._______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol