On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:42, Mark Keasling wrote: > > x RENAME foo bar > > x OK [NEW-UIDVALIDITY 123456] Renamed.
> This is not as useful as you may think. If the UIDVALIDITY is changed what > prevents the server from changing the UIDs as well. Just getting the UIDVALIDITY > is not sufficient. It would be, if that NEW-UIDVALIDITY tag was standardized. That was the pretty much the point of the mail, there's no use writing the code if it never gets into any standard. I think I'll anyway implement the UIDVALIDITY changing the way I said before, at least that makes sure the RENAME can't break things. Announcing the NEW-UIDVALIDITY isn't that important, it would only be a way for clients that support it to know that the UIDs were left untouched even while UIDVALIDITY was changed.
