Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> RENAME, on the other hand, is broken on almost all servers. >>Maybe. But it is not impossible to fix RENAME in servers staying complaint >>with IMAP4rev1. > > Compliant is one thing, but bumping UIDVALIDITY for source and destination > mailboxes when renaming means that most offline clients have to re-scan > the folder and download headers. > > Which means that RENAME in practise will be _slower_ than > create, copy, delete. So why do we need RENAME?
Not all clients are offline clients, so not all clients need to perform the re-scan. >>And I don't buy the argument that a server can't store 4bytes UIDVALIDITY >>somewhere when mailbox is deleted/renamed. > > Do you understand the problem with UIDVALIDITY and RENAME? Not only do you > have to store your 4 bytes, but you will have to store all UIDVALIDITY > values that any folder has had ever, after renames, forever. This is to > prevent the situation where the same UID/UIDVALIDITY points to two > different messages at two different times. Assuming the UIDVALIDITY value must grow, as the specification says, I guess you only have to store the highest last used one. This seems like a rather trivial thing to implement, compared with all other complex things in IMAP. But I agree that the current situation is no good. Either clarify the document, or if doesn't seem possible to do so, remove RENAME.
