MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU  Fri Apr  6 09:39:38 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: <87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
	<87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>

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.

We should keep in mind that not everyone is fully cognizant of the ins and 
outs of IMAP; and we should not rely upon what is "obvious" to resolve 
ambiguities in our wording.

Thanks again for a good reminder!

-- 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.

