Auto detect IMAP special folders when configuring account

[Yannick243]

PR

After #625, cypht was unable to auto detect IMAP special folders (Trash/Sent/Drafts) even though they exist on the server.
Based on "RFC 6154: IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes"

Related issue:

#817

[marclaporte]

After #625, cypht was unable

I don't remember ever seeing this work before. #625 arrived in Cypht 2.0.0

Can you confirm if this works OK in Cypht 1.4.x?

Thanks!

[Yannick243]

The feature was introduced here: #586
After testing on version 1.4.x, it appears that it was working partially (on some folders).

With this adjustment to 2.0.0, it is working with all folders when using the configuration form below.

As we can see the folders are automatically detected:

For now, the remaining part that is not working is when using the advanced configuration form below:
https://imgur.com/a/HW4yFZZ

[marclaporte]

Ok, but is it working because we are matching folder names or via "RFC 6154: IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes"?

[marclaporte]

@josaphatim any wisdom?

[josaphatim]

Ok, but is it working because we are matching folder names or via "RFC 6154: IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes"?

@josaphatim any wisdom?

RFC 6154 says that: This extension adds new optional mailbox attributes that a server may include in IMAP LIST command responses to identify special-use mailboxes to the client. This being said, special-use mailboxes will not always be present for all providers and some will only provide a few special-use mailboxes.
However the feature was working fine before #625 was merged.

[marclaporte]

Ok. So @Yannick243: please make sure to leverage RFC 6154 and not just folder names.

[Yannick243]

Hello @josaphatim, @marclaporte
The code below that we have in Cypht takes advantage of RFC 6154.
With the command LIST (SPECIAL-USE) "" "*", we request mailboxes along with their special-use attributes and later filter them with their corresponding folders (if they exist). Are you okay with this so I can proceed to the next step ?

[marclaporte]

Sounds good to me. @josaphatim?

[josaphatim]

@Yannick243 why this still in draft ?

[Yannick243]

This is not working when using the new advanced configuration form #855.
That's what I am fixing.

[Yannick243]

The PR is ready for a review.