[Dovecot] Dovecot RFC non-compliance: Mailbox names
Hi,
I think I already know the answer to this and I agree with it, but I have a question about "invalid" mailbox naming decisions in dovecot. Technically, RFC3501 (Section 5.1, pg. 18, client consideration 3) says that * and % are legal in mailbox names, though it implicitly discourages their use. We just migrated to dovecot, and unfortunately have a few users who used * in their mailbox naming (which worked on our old IMAP server).
I looked in the mailing list and source comments, but I could not find any discussion.
Was there any discussion about the imap/commands-util.c:48?
46: /* make sure it even looks valid */ 47: sep = mail_storage_get_hierarchy_sep(storage); 48: if (*mailbox == '\0' || strspn(mailbox, "\r\n*%?") != 0) { 49: client_send_tagline(cmd, "NO Invalid mailbox name.");
which is technically not RFC-compliant? I have a feeling it fixes much more important things than it breaks (i.e. LIST/LSUB), but then again we never had complaints from people using those characters in names until they stopped being supported.
-- Anthony Kay University Computing Center (541) 346-1719 GPG Fingerprint: B0DB D46A 60AF FAE7 A94A 5075 0CB4 4D88 9F4F 7F09
Sanity is a cozy lie.
Susan SontagOn 15.2.2006 20:40, "Tony Kay" tkay@uoregon.edu wrote:
Was there any discussion about the imap/commands-util.c:48?
46: /* make sure it even looks valid */ 47: sep = mail_storage_get_hierarchy_sep(storage); 48: if (*mailbox == '\0' || strspn(mailbox, "\r\n*%?") != 0) { 49: client_send_tagline(cmd, "NO Invalid mailbox name.");
which is technically not RFC-compliant? I have a feeling it fixes much more important things than it breaks (i.e. LIST/LSUB), but then again we never had complaints from people using those characters in names until they stopped being supported.
Hmm. I suppose it's not all that useful to deny * and % in mailbox names. You're the first one to complain about it though :) I'll remove the restriction from future releases.
Timo,
My question was not meant to be a complaint...I think it is pretty silly to use * and % in a folder name. I am happy telling users not to be that silly. I was just curious if you knew something I didn't (like a newer RFC that revised the decision of allowed folder names).
Thanks!
Tony
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:35:51 +0200, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
On 15.2.2006 20:40, "Tony Kay" tkay@uoregon.edu wrote:
Was there any discussion about the imap/commands-util.c:48?
46: /* make sure it even looks valid */ 47: sep = mail_storage_get_hierarchy_sep(storage); 48: if (*mailbox == '\0' || strspn(mailbox, "\r\n*%?") != 0) { 49: client_send_tagline(cmd, "NO Invalid mailbox name.");
which is technically not RFC-compliant? I have a feeling it fixes much more important things than it breaks (i.e. LIST/LSUB), but then again we never had complaints from people using those characters in names until they stopped being supported.
Hmm. I suppose it's not all that useful to deny * and % in mailbox names. You're the first one to complain about it though :) I'll remove the restriction from future releases.
-- Anthony Kay University Computing Center (541) 346-1719 GPG Fingerprint: B0DB D46A 60AF FAE7 A94A 5075 0CB4 4D88 9F4F 7F09
If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance.
- George Bernard Shaw
participants (2)
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Tony Kay