>>>>> "NS" == Nikolay Shopik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NS> I forgot to add some MUA don't like be subscribed to folders which
NS> doesn't exist so you should probably aware of this too in case
NS> such MUA used in your environment .
While it doesn't surprise me that there may well be MUAs which don't like
subcriptions to folders that don't exist it seems to me that such MUAs are
sailing pretty close to the wind as regards RFC 3501.
The wording of sections 6.3.6 and 6.3.9 as I read it pretty heavily imply
that clients must be prepared to deal with subscribed folders that no
longer exist because a server is explicitly prevented from attempting to
'protect' a client from such a situation.
6.3.6. SUBSCRIBE Command
[...]
A server MAY validate the mailbox argument to SUBSCRIBE to verify
that it exists. However, it MUST NOT unilaterally remove an
existing mailbox name from the subscription list even if a mailbox
by that name no longer exists.
Note: This requirement is because a server site can
choose to routinely remove a mailbox with a well-known
name (e.g., "system-alerts") after its contents expire,
with the intention of recreating it when new contents
are appropriate.
[...]
6.3.9. LSUB Command
[...]
The server MUST NOT unilaterally remove an existing mailbox name
from the subscription list even if a mailbox by that name no
longer exists.
