Re: imap/2837: MYRIGHTS not understood by Mirapoint IMAP4PROXY
The following reply was made to PR imap/2837; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Champion <dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>, bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: imap/2837: MYRIGHTS not understood by Mirapoint IMAP4PROXY
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:53:38 -0600
* On 2007.03.08, in <20070308194240.GP2924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Kyle Wheeler" <kyle-mutt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8 at 01:17 PM, quoth David Champion:
> >>This is, well, stupid. Not only do they claim ACL support, but
> >>QUOTA support as well.
> >
> >I'm not sure I understand you. I surely don't mean to defend Mirapoint
> >(we use them, and I'm not a fan by a long shot) but it is legitimate
> >to offer different capabilities when authenticated than when not, no?
>
> True, but do they actually support ACL and QUOTA commands when you're
> not authenticated? I doubt it. Essentially, they're *lying*.
They're lying *if* they don't support ACL and QUOTA when they say they
do. If they're lying, then I agree the server is broken, but I don't
see that this changes anything -- it it were not lying and it changed
its capability list upon login, then the patch would still be necessary.
Is that a spec violation? I might be wrong, but I didn't think so.
Anyway, you seem to be assuming that Mirapoint's server does not support
QUOTA or ACL before login, but I'm not sure why that assumption is
valid.
> I'm philosophically more comfortable with not providing the full list
> of capabilities to people who aren't authenticated than I am with
Is authentication necessary for mailbox access? Does anonymous access
require login as an "anonymous" user? Again, I could be wrong, but I
didn't think so.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago