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

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.