On 20 Jan 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: >On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 23:30, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >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).
You agree that the problem arises if the same mailbox has the same UIDVALIDITY two times in history in such a way that the same UID referes to two different messages. Then you say that this can never occur if the UIDVALIDITY is always different. True, but how can you make sure that this is the case? >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. Exactly! Which is why the RFC recommends the use of UNIX time (time(NULL)), in which case it is unnecessary to remember any previous values. >Are there actually clients that check the uidvalidity change with ">=" >operator rather than "!="? That is not the question - and any answer to that question would not make anyone any wizer, because only a limited number of clients are in use by the subscribers to this mailing list. The point is that the RFC has good reason to require this behavior on the server side, and any server that does not follow this requirement is broken and needs to be fixed. Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen - Binc IMAP http://www.bincimap.andreas.hanssen.name/
