> > the messages modified since the last check.
> >
> > You then need a modify command
> >
> > MODIFY id {size} data
> > And
> > UID MODIFY uid {size} data
>
> Like Arnt said, this won't happen. I don't think it's much of
> a problem just
> to do this with APPEND + EXPUNGE.
>
Imagine I have an organisation with a 1000 people and each of them has a
shared address book. Some of the entries are themselves shared as they
relate to physical objects (maybe ldap data).In order to do append/expunge I would have to maintain a uid table for each element for each user. This is silly. I do not understand why an optional modify would not be permitted. So if an entry is shared among 1000 users (in 1000 address books) I have to create 1000 new UID's to update the object in all the mailboxes. If modifications were permitted by an extension and the folder is a mail store the response to modify is NO. Its pretty simple and consistent with all existing mail stores. I'm not talking here about clients just dumping data into a mailbox and saying "I'll remember that that's where I store addresses". But a mechanism for a server to say to a client, "These are your address books and none of the entries have been modified". Doing this with UID's means keeping a UID store for each address book that each user can access and is a kludge to avoid having a modified date. IMAP is great for sharing of folders but really needs a defined mechanism for handling data objects that can change.
