--On Tuesday, November 27, 2001 03:25:54 PM -0500 Casey West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2001 at 12:08 -0500, Lawrence Greenfield took the soap box and > proclaimed: : The spec isn't clear about whether subscriptions should > follow the : mailbox or the name. Mark Crispin generally believes they > should : follow the name. > : > : This isn't a trivial thing to fix in general (multiple people might > : have a subscription to the mailbox) and I don't think it's worth > : changing Cyrus's current behavior. > > I think subscriptions should follow the mailbox. In the case of a > personal folder, when I rename a subscribed folder, I still want to be > subscribed to it. If it'sa shared folder, and I'm subscribed to it, > and someone renames it, it would suck if I couldn't find it in my > subscription list any more. Then your MUA should give you the option of automatically moving your subscription. > Can you think of a situation where you don't want the subscription to > follow the mailbox? Ok, hows this: I want to rename a shared mailbox to an archival name, and then create a new one with the old name. (More efficient than copying to a new mailbox, and retains all the flag info.) After 30 years as a software engineer, I've come up with a few simple rules of thumb. One of them says that if you have a choice of ways to do something, pick the one that retains the most flexability. In this case I believe that means retain the current behavour. I think a better solution would be to draft an RFC for an IMAP extension to add a new command that would be similar to the existing rename; but would explicitly update all the subscriptions to point to the new mailbox. (Offering this extension would imply that the old rename does not affect subscriptions at all on this server.) -Pat
msg04760/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
