MBOX-Line: From witold.krecicki at firma.o2.pl  Fri Jun 11 18:06:47 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.2.00.1006111752580.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006120251.24779.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006111752580.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
Message-ID: <201006120306.47168.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>

On Saturday 12 of June 2010 02:59:28 Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Witold Kr?cicki wrote:
> >> If you do believe that, then you are wrong.  I know of multiple clients,
> >> including at least one with millions of users, that have undelete as
> >> Philip describes.
> > 
> > Name at least the one with millions of users.
> 
> Pine/Alpine.  There were several tens of thousands of users at UW alone.
> Other institutions of comparable size had similar numbers.
> 
> UW also kept statistics, in part through a phone-home.  And yes,
> duplicates were filtered.
You are silently assuming that all of pine/alpine users were using IMAP. I was 
using pine, then alpine myself but I have never used IMAP in it, only local 
mailboxes. So there is still no 'millions of users' of an IMAP client (using 
IMAP service) that is using undelete capability (at least not for 'long 
undelete' - undeleting message that has been deleted few seconds ago can be 
resolved even with a simple delete delay (altough that would break 
atomicity...), and with real store +flags (\Deleted) each access to this 
mailbox with eg. Thunderbird would cause those \Deleted messages to be 
permanently lost) 
-- 
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

