On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 08:18, Mark Keasling wrote: > What is needed is an easy way for the server make the unique identifier > guarantee while still permitting the user to rearrange things. A mailbox > name is not a guaranteed unique identifier. It should be removed from > the unique identifier equation. In its place, use a value that unlike > the mailbox name is completely controlled by the server.
You're forgetting the most important problem: backwards compatibility. Introducing a new identifier wouldn't help at all if the clients didn't support it. If it wasn't for the requirement of growing UIDVALIDITY, that itself could be used as the unique identifier. Most (if not all) clients would likely handle lower UIDVALIDITY just as well as higher. The whole issue is really rather just theoretical, I doubt this has caused many problems with users. I'd want it fixed in any case though :)
