On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:43, John Milan wrote: > "This is exactly why I raised my initial objection, and after discussing > this with Mark, he and I agree that messages that are modified in any way > that would cause a modification of the ENVELOPE or BODYSTRUCTURE are > different messages, and thus the UID of the message MUST be changed."
Shouldn't UID be changed if _anything_ changes in message header or body? > Why am I beating a horse that that died back in 1998? Because it wasn't > beaten properly! I think this is a huge hole in the IMAP spec, and other > than several references stating 'messages MUST be immutable', I have yet to > see any problem explaining why it's so obviously impossible for messages to > be mutable. Because of current caching rules. Two possible ways to support updating messages in backwards compatible way: 1. Change the UID, but add some way for new clients to find out what it's old UIDs were. 2. Change UIDVALIDITY if something is updated, and add some way for new clients to invalidate cache only for changed messages. I'd say 1. is more realistic.
