Re: [Imap-protocol] rfc-5258 LIST Command Extensions
Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 30/10/2012 17:37, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> 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.
Right. Some examples in the document demonstrate valid, but maybe not
entirely expected responses. That was intentional, although the document
should have explained that.
>> 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).
Agreed.
>> 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.
This was already reported:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2072
_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol