MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Fri Jun 11 01:26:21 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: <201006110959.37166.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<4C11E96E.7080502@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<201006110959.37166.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
Message-ID: <4C11F32D.6070006@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

It's after ten, I've had some tea and my head is clearer.

On 06/11/2010 09:59 AM, Witold Kr?cicki wrote:
> On Friday 11 of June 2010 09:44:46 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>> I implemented that a while ago, but I chose to implement only UID MOVE
>> (an atomic uid-based move being what was needed), and you chose to
>> specify only MOVE. Why not UID?
>
> <quote>
>     Additionally, MOVE command can be directly preceeded by UID command,
>     the sequence set argument is then treated as unique identifiers
>     sequence instead of message sequence numbers as defined in [IMAP4]
>     paragraph 6.4.8.
>
> </quote>

Nits:

    delays on server side.  It also prohibits user from moving a message
    larger than remainings of his quota.

could be e.g. "which is larger than the remnant of his quota". Might add 
a sentence pointing out that MOVE, unlike the three-command replacement 
sequence, can be atomic.

    If server supports both UIDPLUS and MOVE extensions it SHOULD return

should be "If the server supports both the"

        uid             = "UID" SP (copy / fetch / search / store / move)

would be better as 'uid =/ "UID MOVE"'... but I can see why you did it 
as you did it.

(I extended my implementation to support all of your draft.)

Arnt

