Subject: Naming rules w.r.t. ambiguous names

From: John Gardiner Myers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:45:34 -0500 (EST)

I disagree with the following rule in Naming.txt:

"c-client will look for ambiguous names ONLY in the same technology as
the INBOX mailbox."

C-client should look for ambiguous names in all technologies.  Each
technology must have the ability to determine whether or not it has an
object of that name.  When two or more technologies have an object
with the same name it is an implementation issue to determine which
has precedence.

It is reasonable to state the rule that ambiguous names will only be
CREATED in the same technology as the INBOX mailbox.

				_.John

---

From: Laurence Lundblade <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 07:55:19 -0500 (EST)

I agree with John here, as long as the ambiguous names across all
technologies are not required to be unique, as I believe is the current
implementation is.

I also agree that Pine 3.05 knows too much about technology formats. It's
probably in the worst state possible now as the process of moving all that
stuff into the c-client is not complete. Some is in the c-client, but
there's a huge amount of code in Pine. The work hasn't progresses because
we've found the naming scheme and semantics of some routines in the
c-client lacking. For example mail_find() always returns FQ (fully
qualified -- unambiguous) names, it is not really appropriate to present
such names to the use, and it's not possible to undo the FQ without
knowledge of the OS of the server. The basic name of a folder includes:
technology, path, ambiguous name, and host. The basic problem is how to
put these all together.

At the moment I've got a ton of beginning Pascal progams to grade and home
work due, so I won't say more for a day or two, but have more thoughts.

LL