At 10:03 10/05/2002 -0700, Mark Crispin wrote: >On Fri, 10 May 2002 17:22:32 +0100, Paul Smith wrote: > > You don't have to do a 'true' move. You could do a 'copy', 'delete' action > > - this could have advantages over the current 'copy', 'store', 'expunge' > > system because 'expunge' acts on ALL messages marked as 'deleted', but a > > 'MOVE' command could only delete a single message after it's been copied. > >Oh, so now you want a single-message expunge.
Well, now you come to mention it... :-) > I bet that it won't be long >before someone gets the idea that they want an atomic command to do this too. > >What about the interaction with disk quotas? What interaction? You mean they'll work better? >Folks, creeping featurism is not a good thing. It is especially not a good >thing when the end user function is already possible with the existing >functionality set, and the proposed new feature is a minor tweak that may be >more efficient on some servers. But the end user function is NOT already possible. You can't move messages from a mailbox at the moment without either leaving a 'deleted' message behind (increasing disk use) or expunging messages that you might not want to have expunged. (Although, as has already been said by someone, the UIDPLUS extension does have the facility to selectively expunge messages, so that might be an acceptable solution) Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pscs.co.uk/
