52243 - redundant lsub issue

Status: NEW

(MailNews Core :: Networking: IMAP, defect)

Description

[Henrik Gemal]

the seems to be a lsub command too much when using IMAP:
after the login command we issue a namespace command. The result on my IMAP 
server is:
* NAMESPACE (("" "/")) NIL (("Offentlige mapper/" "/"))

Then we issue a lsub "" "*"
This will list all of the folders including the folders in Offentlige mapper 
which are the public folders.

BUT after this we issue another lsub "" "Offentlige mapper/*"
This is redundant since we already should have the folders. At least on my IMAP 
server...

Since the first lsub command shows all the folders we could extract the public 
folder list from this info, right?

Comment 1

[chuang]

assign qa contact to Esther.

Comment 2

[David :Bienvenu]

I think there's a reason we lsub the namespaces - John, is lsub "" "*" supposed
to lsub namespaces other than the personal namespace?

Comment 3

[John G. Myers]

I believe the server is permitted to implement that LSUB command either way.

Comment 4

[Devlin]

When first opening Thunderbird, we have been getting a screen that states "Alert. The current command did not succeed. The mail server responded: LSUB failed."  If we click on the "OK" button, we can access email normally.  However, this is a new problem within the last two weeks.

Our email accounts are IMAP, and we run Macintosh OS X 10.5.4

I have contacted our ISP and they state that it is a bug in Thunderbird.

Comment 5

[Devlin]

Received a "do not reply" email from [e-mail] requesting comments about this bug.  We have the same issues as described in my comments of August 5.

Comment 6

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

wada, bienvenu, would you expect the performance impact of this and bug 46502 to be minor?  I'm not sure whether the old P3 priority of either of these bugs is significant.

Comment 7

[David :Bienvenu]

They're both fairly minor, I would say. This one affects a relatively small minority of users, but it would generate a bit of extra network traffic the first time you connect to the server after startup. The other affects all users, but the effect is tiny.

Comment 8

[Arthur K. (he/him)]

Is this any better since 102.x?

Comment 9

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to Arthur K. (he/him) from comment #8)

Is this any better since 102.x?