Re: IMAP-problems

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

On 04/18/2003, Darko Obradovic wrote:
[ snip ]
> > If you change the last FALSE to TRUE, you may get rid of the
> > duplicates.  Let us know!
> 
> You're right on all aspects. One problem less with the patched version
> now. :)

One down, n to go!

> I don't know what the correct behaviour is according to the RFCs, but,
> forgive me I'm mentioning Sylpheed all the time, it's the only
> alternative I have and use for the moment, does all that as I would
> expect it in my situation: including INBOX (this is not an option
> anywhere, hard-coded default) without any childs. They must have some
> reasons for that I guess.

I don't recall any IMAP-related RFC that suggests how a MUA should 
present an IMAP folder tree.

I can see that if you specify a prefix, you might want the tree to be 
based on the folder path names *after* the prefix. If the prefix is 
"INBOX.", the trimmed path name for any child wouldn't begin "INBOX.", 
so it wouldn't be natural to place it below INBOX. However, Iirc Balsa 
uses the full path name, so the children are recognized as children of 
INBOX and located accordingly.

It could probably be set up the other way. If INBOX were forced into 
the list *after* finding the children, they would be attached directly 
to the root of the tree, and INBOX would later be added, also directly 
to the root--which sounds like what Sylpheed does.

Peter