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: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: imap/2837: MYRIGHTS not understood by Mirapoint IMAP4PROXY
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:41:23 -0600
* On 2007.03.08, in <E1HPPx1-0000ND-Sx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Kyle Wheeler" <kyle-mutt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Probably should... particularly given that it seems to be viewed as
> "okay" (even in the various IMAP RFC's) for the CAPABILITY response to
> change after authentication (and STARTTLS). I still don't think it's
> acceptable to *REMOVE* capabilities when you authenticate, or to claim
It seems to be fairly common, at least -- not just Mirapoint. For
example, servers may take "STARTTLS" off the capability list after you
start TLS, or take AUTH=XYZ off once you authenticate. It seems like a
reasonable way of telling the client that they shouldn't do it again.
(Maybe there are client/server combinations that support re-login, but
if a server doesn't, it seems prudent to stop advertising that it's an
available option.)
> technically claim all kinds of nonsense in their initial CAPABILITY
> response if they wanted to. :)
But that's the whole point of CAPABILITY. :) You can claim anything, as
long as you accept responsibility for what compliant clients do with
that. If it's undefined, a compliant client ignores it and there's no
problem.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT University of Chicago