On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
On 31.10.2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Right, it could (would) cause mailboxes to be listed that aren't supposed to be listed. I think you'll also have a problem if e.g.
"foo" exists but doesn't have 'l' right and "foo/bar" exists and has 'l' right. I think % will currently not list "foo". If it behaved
correctly it should list it as non-existing mailbox.That case seems to work correctly with my patch.
Oh. Wonder why..
In my tests so far, it basically behaves exactly like you explain:
LIST % -> List "foo" as non-existing LIST foo -> List "foo" as non-existing LIST * -> List "foo/bar" only
Maybe there are circumstances that I didn't encounter yet, where it
does indeed fail.
Well, the main failure is that if the child mailboxes aren't listable,
the parent mailbox shouldn't be listed either. Like if I share a
secret/dovecot corp/contracts/google/october mailbox to someone then
other people really shouldn't be seeing secret/dovecot corp/contracts/
google :)