On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> RENAME, on the other hand, is broken on almost all servers. >Maybe. But it is not impossible to fix RENAME in servers staying complaint >with IMAP4rev1.
Compliant is one thing, but bumping UIDVALIDITY for source and destination mailboxes when renaming means that most offline clients have to re-scan the folder and download headers. Which means that RENAME in practise will be _slower_ than create, copy, delete. So why do we need RENAME? >And I don't buy the argument that a server can't store 4bytes UIDVALIDITY >somewhere when mailbox is deleted/renamed. Do you understand the problem with UIDVALIDITY and RENAME? Not only do you have to store your 4 bytes, but you will have to store all UIDVALIDITY values that any folder has had ever, after renames, forever. This is to prevent the situation where the same UID/UIDVALIDITY points to two different messages at two different times. Andy >> The Cyrus server (including the one running on imap.andrew.cmu.edu) >> advertises that >> it does not implement RENAME in a compliant fashion NO_ATOMIC_RENAME >> capability. > >This used to be a problem in a single implementations. Several servers >derived from Cyrus don't have this issue. > >Alexey > > > -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen - Binc IMAP http://www.bincimap.andreas.hanssen.name/
