MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Mon Jun 14 03:33:38 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <29965.1276510437.099598@puncture>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006112352.05642.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.1006111511070.10697@vanye.sendmail.com>
	<201006120124.53714.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<29965.1276510437.099598@puncture>
Message-ID: <4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

On 06/14/2010 12:13 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Yes, I agree it's a good idea, too. But the barriers to it are just far,
> far too large to be worthwhile overcoming, given the scope of the
> extension. An extension like this you really want to be implementable
> *everywhere*, and this just doesn't feel right.

Dave, you're talking about an extension AOL already has put into the 
world, and which Tb already implements. Is the barrier between 
"XAOL-MOVE" and "MOVE" really so large?

Arnt

