MBOX-Line: From dave at cridland.net  Mon Jun 14 05:06:56 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006112352.05642.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.1006111511070.10697@vanye.sendmail.com>
	<201006120124.53714.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<29965.1276510437.099598@puncture>
	<4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Message-ID: <29965.1276517216.816512@puncture>

On Mon Jun 14 11:33:38 2010, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 12:13 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Yes, I agree it's a good idea, too. But the barriers to it are  
>> just far,
>> far too large to be worthwhile overcoming, given the scope of the
>> extension. An extension like this you really want to be  
>> implementable
>> *everywhere*, and this just doesn't feel right.
> 
> 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?

Not for AOL and TB, obviously. :-)

If this can be worked through such that we can get all the kinks out  
- or, alternately, so that we have an equivalent way of achieving the  
end-goal - I'm all in favour. I just currently don't see a MOVE  
command as nearly as simple as it's being made out to be in many  
implementations, and as quite a departure from various IMAP semantics.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

