MBOX-Line: From snowjn at aol.com  Mon Jun 14 11:10:07 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: John Snow <snowjn@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1006140828270.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
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>	<4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006140828270.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
Message-ID: <4C16707F.5030906@aol.com>

  Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Is AOL's implementation certified not to have any of the potential
> failures that have discussed?  I'm not saying that it is impossible to
> have such an implementation; but I am saying that it's awfully cocky to
> claim it without submitting the details for examination.
Certified?  there's no need. My server is just awesome.  How's that
for cocky??

Seriously, of course not.  The command was originally added for our
internal use.  If it were to be an official recognized feature then I
would expect all of the issues to be reviewed and resolved here, just
as we're doing now.

>
> For what it's worth, I've worked out how a store can be designed to do 
> it.
> In such a store there is no particular benefit to MOVE over COPY; MOVE is
> comparable (slightly slower) to COPY in performance.  Any store which has
> a slow COPY can not have a faster yet safe MOVE.
I have to disagree here.  In a database indexed backend, the move is simply
a update to the tracking row to change the parent folder.  A copy, on 
the other
hand, would create a new instance of the message and a new entry in the
tracking database.  So, in my case it's one atomic database update 
compared to
a message write and database insert. 
>
> I daresay that AOL is just a small percentage of overall IMAP usage; and
> AOL users using Thunderbird are a smaller percentage.  What happens if we
> jump off this cliff and discover that there really is no net at the
> bottom?  What responsibility will AOL take?
>
Here, I'll just reuse one of your comments and say "Prove it".

I know exactly how much IMAP usage AOL has.  I also have a good idea how 
much
of that usage is Thunderbird.  I don't know how much IMAP is used 
worldwide, and
I'd bet you don't either.

Isn't discovering the net what we're trying to accomplish?

> -- Mark --
>
> http://panda.com/mrc
> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20100614/0d2cc617/attachment.html>
