MBOX-Line: From murch at andrew.cmu.edu  Fri Apr  6 09:47:27 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RENAME Inbox
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
	<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
Message-ID: <4616799F.2030003@andrew.cmu.edu>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, David Rauschenbach wrote:
>> So you're saying it is OK if the INBOX's UIDVALIDITY goes from 3,000 
>> down to 1?
> 
> I didn't say that!
> 
> Ken's question about UIDVALIDITY being "reset" meant "set to a new 
> value". I know Ken personally.  He is far too intelligent and informed 
> to propose implementing a UIDVALIDITY going backwards.
> 
> Nonetheless, I understand your concern; and thank you for bringing this 
> question up.  We need to be careful about the words that we use.  What 
> was obvious to Ken and me was clearly not-obvious to you, even though we 
> all knew that UIDVALIDITY can not ever go backwards.  You were 
> (rightfully!) alarmed.

Correct.  Unfortunately, my response with the UIDVALIDITY response code 
was incorrect.  The response should include a UIVALIDITY > 3000.

Cyrus uses time(0) as the UIDVALIDITY, so my code wouldn't have made my 
careless mistake.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University

