[Dovecot] Why SETACL accepts non-existant users (was Re: Why are ACLs for non-existent mailboxes accepted?)

[Boris]

On Monday 24 February 2014 18:04:40 Michael M Slusarz wrote:
> SETACL only returns NO if you "can't set acl".  But "can't set acl" !=
> "mailbox has to exist".  Example: a server can allow pre-setting ACLs
> for mailboxes that MAY be created in the future.  Perfectly legal
> according to the spec.

Sounds reasonable. Thank you for the hint.
 
> RFC 3501 defines the commands needed to check for mailbox existence.
> If you are trying to use ACL commands to determine mailbox existence
> you are doing it wrong.

I'm glad I'm not doing this then.