MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Fri Jun 11 07:44:39 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <1768814180.483.1276267238967.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
References: <1768814180.483.1276267238967.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
Message-ID: <1276267479.22134.102.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com>

On pe, 2010-06-11 at 07:40 -0700, Dan Karp wrote:

> Incidentally, Mark's stated reason for avoiding a MOVE op in baseline
> IMAP was that it would be the only operation to require locking >1 
> mailbox simultaneously.  Or so I recall.

As long as there is no requirement for MOVE to be atomic (i.e. it would
be allowed to emulate it with copy+expunge), there's no need to lock
multiple mailboxes simultaneously.



