Re: RENAME, once more

[Cyrus Daboo]

Hi Timo,

--On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 04:43:13 PM +0200 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

|> I don't believe I'm forgetting anything...
|> Adding something to the protocol does not cause backward incompatibility.
|
| No, but neither does it fix the issue with non-supporting clients.
| Server is still broken with them.

This begs the question - how many clients out there now know how to deal with the problem of renames and keeping there caches in sync now? The bottom line is that neither NEW_UIDVALIDITY nor global UIDS (effectively Mark's proposal) will work with any existing deployed clients. So we are talking here about a solution for 'future' clients. Given that, I think it would be better to fix this problem properly - and IMHO that means global UIDs. Note that global UIDs not works for the client that does the rename, but also for other clients that have disconnected caches of the renamed mailbox - NEW-UIDVALIDITY only solves the problem for the client doing the rename, and that is not enough.

--
Cyrus Daboo