MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Fri Apr  6 09:16:00 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RENAME Inbox
In-Reply-To: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Ken Murchison wrote:
> I don't want to start another holy over whether we need to drop RENAME, but I 
> have a couple of questions regarding the intended/expected behavior of RENAME 
> Inbox.

If IMAP5 ever happens, I will insist that RENAME is dropped.  Nobody 
implements it correctly.

> - I assume that \Seen state should follow the messages, just like any other 
> RENAME, correct?

I think so.

> - Should mailbox annotations be copied or moved to the new mailbox?

I think that they move with the mailbox.

> - Should the UIDVALIDITY, UIDNEXT, HIGHESTMODESEQ, etc of the Inbox be reset?
> In other words, should Inbox look like it has been freshly CREATEd?

I think so, since a freshly-CREATEd INBOX is the intended effect.

-- 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.

