Re: [MORG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-morg-list-specialuse-03.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> > I think the document could use a note explaining that the special-use
>> > flags apply only to the authenticated user's personal mailboxes.  (Or
>> > the opposite, if you so desire!)  In other words, if you did a LIST
>> > on another user's mailboxes (per NAMESPACE), should the \Inbox show
>> > up on their INBOX?
>> >
>> Ah, good point. I think \Inbox and friends shouldn't be shown for
>> INBOXes (etc.) of other users.

I wonder when y'all last read this doc: \Inbox has been out for a while now.

I'm not sure we want to restrict things, and forbid using a shared
mailbox for some functions.  While I agree that in most cases you'll
want to have all the special-use boxes in the user's private
namespace, I'd rather keep any discussion of that as non-normative
advice.

What do you folks think of that suggestion?

> Also maybe this example should use "*" instead of "%":
>
>     C: t3 LIST (SPECIAL-USE) "" "%"
>     S: * LIST (\Sent) "/" SentMail
>     S: * LIST (\Marked \Drafts) "/" MyDrafts
>     S: * LIST (\Trash) "/" Trash
>     S: t3 OK done
>
> And a small note that it's not required that the special-use mailboxes
> exist on root level (especially when server uses e.g. INBOX/ namespace
> prefix), and with "*" it's guaranteed to return all of them.

OK, sure.  Reasonable change.

>> CREATE command "USE" parameter: In some server implementations, some
>>    special uses may imply automatic action by the server.  For example,
>>    creation of a "\Junk" mailbox might cause the server to start placing
>>    messages that have been evaluated as spam into the mailbox.  Server
>>    implementors SHOULD consider the consequences of allowing a user (or
>>    client program) to designate the target of such automatic action.
>
> Maybe make it clearer with a note something like: "(e.g. mailboxes
> containing spaces, line feeds, quotes or '`' characters might break some
> scripts)".

Hm.  That's not what that security note is talking about at all.  I
could certainly add your note as well (though I don't know that it's a
security consideration), but it's entirely orthogonal to the paragraph
you cited.

Barry