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.
