MBOX-Line: From witold.krecicki at firma.o2.pl  Mon Jun 14 08:55:08 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Witold =?utf-8?q?Kr=C4=99cicki?= <witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
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>
	<4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006140828270.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
Message-ID: <201006141755.09002.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>

On Monday 14 of June 2010 17:43:37 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.
Is there an IMAP certification authority? Is there even a tests set that is 
checking the basic (RFC3501) functionality of an IMAP server? 

> 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.
Your assumption is wrong. I've seen such store. I've shown you how this kind 
of store might look like. You didn't listen. Period.

-- 
Witold Kr?cicki

Grupa o2 Sp??ka z o.o., ul. Jutrzenki 177, 02-231 Warszawa,
KRS 0000140518, S?d Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy, 
Kapita? zak?adowy 377.298,00 z?., NIP 521-31-11-513

