mirror of https://git.code.sf.net/p/isync/isync
Browse Source
while it's correct that mbsync doesn't strictly need to support both Inbox and Path in a single Channel due to being able to Group Channels, this "simplification" would have some undesirable effects: - the concept is part of IMAP and provides a certain level of "zero-conf" (in particular via NAMESPACE). having to set up two Stores and associated Channels for one Account to reproduce this functionality would add quite some redundancy to common configurations. - implementing MapInbox and move detection across Channels would add significant complexity. one reason why one would want this change in the first place is to get rid of the ambiguity of INBOX appearing right under Path. this could be avoided by either using a different magic prefix that cannot appear in actual mailbox names, or requiring a prefix for boxes inside path as well. neither approach seems worth the effort, given that nesting "INBOX" under Path causes problems for some other IMAP clients anyway.1.4
Oswald Buddenhagen
5 years ago
1 changed files with 0 additions and 6 deletions
Loading…
Reference in new issue