On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 12:22, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > I propose the following solution: remove that constraint and require the > renamed mailbox to get a new UIDVALIDITY value as if it were simply being > created. However, the message UIDs MUST remain the same and the server > SHOULD return the new UIDVALIDITY in the RENAME's OK response or as an > untagged response.
I was just going to propose the same thing. > The only problem with this is the hierarchical rename because the > uidvalidities on the child mailboxes will also be changed and I think it > may be too much to have those new uidvalidities returned as untagged > responses - particularly if the hierarchy is large. Maybe all of the mailboxes could be changed to use the same UIDVALIDITY?
