Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If the client does the "!=" test instead of the ">=" test, then it's a >> client that allows more than the RFC allows. I'm not quite sure of the >> implications of this, but I can not imagine why a client would use "!=" >> instead of ">=". > > I can't imagine why client would use ">=" instead of "!=". Change is a > change, no matter the direction. Besides, the rfc2060 mentions "growing" > UIDVALIDITY twice, "different" UIDVALIDITY 4 times.
I believe clients may use the >= check implicitly by choosing to trust the UID data associated with the largest UIDVALIDITY value. That said, when I look at a IMAP client I am familiar with, it uses !=. Still, fixing this in a back-wards incompatible way seems like a bad approach.
