On 2002.05.11 10:29 Marek Kowal wrote: > copying/deleting the file. That's exactly what I want from IMAP. There > are two possible solutions: > > 1. We put MOVE command directly in the RFC. Then all server > programmers are supposed to implement it, and for the mail stores, > which do not allow it, fake it by implementing copying and deleting.
Sounds like a interesting idea. But, it would be great if you could provide also a reference implementation of this move action, fulfilling all the necessary requirements, in particular proper error handling, mbox mailbox drivers, etc. Many people will be grateful. > 2. We make it an extension avaliable via CAPABILITY after login. Then > only some client programmers use it, if they know how to use it. All > others stay within their world of copy/store and hopefully wait for > an expunge, FYI: You can make it an extension already now, just make sure its name begins with X. > unless server provides UID EXPUNGE, which I've just got to know about > it. But even so, I wouldn't cancel my previous post - I still want to > have efficient implementations, which COPY/STORE/UID EXPUNGE does not > allow. I want to move, not copy, in short ;-) Do you think it is possible that you would solve your performance problems by improving the implementation of the COPY command? This would not only leave the standard intact but also gave you a server that can not only move but also copy messages fast. BTW, http://staff.washington.edu/lrs/ew/ describes an installation for 60000 users, 4000 simultaneous connections. I know it is less than a million but I believe that only a fraction of it is on-line at any given time. > In the end, it all comes to important reference implementation. > Preferably in some widely used server, be it UW IMAP or Cyrus > IMAP. Otherwise the whole stuff is wasted, for nobody will implement > "yet another server extension" in clients unless 50% of servers do > not support it. That's why I'm so interested in pushing this case > forward through this forum. If Mark agrees on that and support would > go to c-client, people would start using it immediately I would be interested in a patch for c-client/imapd that implements reliable XMOVE. I am sure such a working implementation would help to accept this idea. -pawel
