On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > >In my humble opinion: > >RENAME was a bad idea, and should be removed from the protocol. > What is your advise to an author of an IMAP server that tries hard to > be as compliant as possible? ;)
Lobby with me to abolish the RENAME command. I believe the only safe implementation of RENAME is one that creates a new mailbox, copies all messages to that new mailbox, and then deletes the source mailbox. The client can do that just as easily as the server. The idea behind RENAME was to have a command which would do a rename() system call at the server end. That has been demonstrated to be an ill-conceived idea. Not only doesn't this do the right thing with UIDVALIDITY (a flaw that almost every server has), but Cyrus doesn't even do the RENAME in an atomic fashion (also, does Cyrus still fail to rename the inferiors?). I believe that RENAME can't be fixed, and should be removed. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
