Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: > >>>>If we can find another way to comply with the RFC besides automatic >>>>database sequence numbers, we will definitely go for it. Any ideas, >>>>however crazy, are welcome... although the really crazy ones will probably >>>>just be used to help come up with simple straightforward plans ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>Is it such that all messages gets a unique incrementing id system-wide >>>or account-wide? >>> >> >>I believe it is on a per-mailbox basis. At this point, we all need to dig >>into the RFC, though. Here it is: >> >>http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3501.html >> > > 2.3.1.1. Unique Identifier (UID) Message Attribute > > A 32-bit value assigned to each message, which when used with the > unique identifier validity value (see below) forms a 64-bit value > that MUST NOT refer to any other message in the mailbox or any > subsequent mailbox with the same name forever. Unique identifiers > are assigned in a strictly ascending fashion in the mailbox; as each > message is added to the mailbox it is assigned a higher UID than the > message(s) which were added previously. Unlike message sequence > numbers, unique identifiers are not necessarily contiguous. > > Looks like you're correct on the per-mailbox thing :) > > That makes things a lot easier.
Sure, but your point about the shared mailboxes? Are you suggesting that two people each with mailboxes of the same name might somehow merge them into a single shared mailbox? That would certainly introduce the likelihood of collisions... our current schema wouldn't take the name into account, though, or using IMAP namespaces, would have it separately named anyways. Aaron --
