On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 23:30, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > >Like I said, I don't see any requirement for UIDVALIDITY to _grow_. It > >has to be _different_. > > "If unique identifiers from an earlier session fail to persist to this > session, the unique identifier validity value MUST be greater than the one > used in the earlier version."
OK, I just quickly checked the specs and didn't notice it. IMHO that's a stupid requirement, why should client care what value it is, as long as it's different from the old one? > So the IMAP server should keep track of all UIDVALIDITY values that a > mailbox has had throughout history? There's only one clean way to avoid > doing that, which is to assign them in strictly ascending order. My quick > guess would be that this is the reason that it's so. If there wasn't the requirement to grow, there would be no need to remember any of the old UIDVALIDITY values, since they could never conflict (with my previous plan). If they do need to grow, server would have to remember the last UIDVALIDITY for deleted mailboxes, so RENAME could check if the UIDVALIDITY must be changed. I don't like that behaviour. It's very unnecessary and requires permanent space for deleted mailboxes. Are there actually clients that check the uidvalidity change with ">=" operator rather than "!="?
