Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "yvfhcpxppkzrcruoe0opcvonbni".
2014 Feb 21
1
Why SETACL accepts non-existant users (was Re: Why are ACLs for non-existent mailboxes accepted?)
...QLsrQgArKBviwA4oHXpQSPHEj9hS+FgmV2pkO82
+3azectYRBh/srANAfhCq+9k6C68yq7BtPTLp77ZyW/v/YG+2lkT4hck+XoEgK+Y
NOew0F/9x3hG2/drStM20YLJBzX54THhJObc832Mk7QMGIsSsILdBZ+SeGYMBuU6
+721ytjNjUXF/WBqcgJpA4v+SrFYY1UXTMWWLyUwql/dxJ8lxU7pdhlpoieb9oFm
BG5jM5YuFg7Faav3eI260mJwUSvxq/L+5xRafDpF//fmhICPMJBgbB9/Z0e/ariO
yvfHCPXppKZRcRUOE0OpcVONBNi/Dkowl1mbEpNxIzVvQZCwIO8eDQ==
=Z3aV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2014 Feb 20
2
Why are ACLs for non-existent mailboxes accepted?
Dovecot 2.2.9-1 accepts SETACL commands that share mailboxes to non-existent
mailboxes. There is no error message. Is this intended behavior?
I think it's bad because clients present a success message when indeed the
intent of the user failed. Typos are hard to catch.