Hi,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:24:53 -0500, Cyrus Daboo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
> Hi Timo,
>
> --On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 01:38:04 AM +0200 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> | So, what about the UIDVALIDITY notify? I like that, it breaks nothing
> | and would allow clients supporting it to keep their message cache.
> |
> | x RENAME foo bar
> | x OK [NEW-UIDVALIDITY 123456] Renamed.
> |
> | If foo had children mailboxes, they'd all be updated to contain the same
> | UIDVALIDITY.
>
> The only caveat is for servers that do not use timestamps for UIDVALIDITY.
> In that case those servers would have to ensure that the new UIDVALIDITY is
> greater than any UIDVALIDITY for mailboxes that may have previously existed
> with any of the new names.
This is not true. The UIDVALIDITY must be only be different.
Only servers that can not preserve UID values between sessions are required to
use ascending uidvality values.
If unique identifiers from an earlier session fail to persist to this
session, the unique identifier validity value MUST be greater than
the one used in the earlier session.
If a new mailbox is created with the same name as a mailbox which
was deleted, its unique identifiers MUST be greater than any
unique identifiers used in the previous incarnation of the mailbox
UNLESS the new incarnation has a different unique identifier
validity value.
Regards,
Mark Keasling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
