22 lines
834 B
Plaintext
22 lines
834 B
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi Fri Jun 11 07:44:39 2010
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:43 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
|
|
In-Reply-To: <1768814180.483.1276267238967.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
References: <1768814180.483.1276267238967.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <1276267479.22134.102.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com>
|
|
|
|
On pe, 2010-06-11 at 07:40 -0700, Dan Karp wrote:
|
|
|
|
> Incidentally, Mark's stated reason for avoiding a MOVE op in baseline
|
|
> IMAP was that it would be the only operation to require locking >1
|
|
> mailbox simultaneously. Or so I recall.
|
|
|
|
As long as there is no requirement for MOVE to be atomic (i.e. it would
|
|
be allowed to emulate it with copy+expunge), there's no need to lock
|
|
multiple mailboxes simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|