Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: > 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.
Once again, you only have to bump UIDVALIDITY if the current value is smaller than the biggest. > Which means that RENAME in practise will be _slower_ than > create, copy, delete. So why do we need RENAME? > >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. No you don't. You just store the biggest UIDVALIDITY ever for the mailbox. > This is to > prevent the situation where the same UID/UIDVALIDITY points to two > different messages at two different times. Alexey
