MBOX-Line: From murch at andrew.cmu.edu  Fri Apr  6 10:43:09 2007
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:39 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RENAME Inbox
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
Message-ID: <461686AD.5040800@andrew.cmu.edu>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> 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.

Is there any problem if the UIDVALIDITY, UIDNEXT, HIGHESTMODSEQ, aren't 
reset?  Will mainstream clients have a problem one way or the other?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University

