>I believe the only safe implementation of RENAME is one that creates a new >mailbox, copies all messages to that new mailbox, and then deletes the >source mailbox. The client can do that just as easily as the server.
I agree. RENAME appears simple at first glance; in practice it has turned out to be to very difficult to implement correctly. Removing RENAME would mean recycling at Proposed, would it not? It also introduces yet another entry into the table of optional protocol elements clients have to support, or work around. If we're seriously considering deprecating RENAME then it's probably time to consider reviewing the protocol from top to bottom, lifting out the good ideas, and starting over. --lyndon
