39 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
39 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From witold.krecicki at firma.o2.pl Mon Jun 14 08:55:08 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.2.00.1006140828270.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
|
|
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
|
|
<4C160582.7020002@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.2.00.1006140828270.662@hsinghsing.panda.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <201006141755.09002.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
|
|
|
|
On Monday 14 of June 2010 17:43:37 Mark Crispin wrote:
|
|
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
|
|
> > 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?
|
|
>
|
|
> Is AOL's implementation certified not to have any of the potential
|
|
> failures that have discussed? I'm not saying that it is impossible to
|
|
> have such an implementation; but I am saying that it's awfully cocky to
|
|
> claim it without submitting the details for examination.
|
|
Is there an IMAP certification authority? Is there even a tests set that is
|
|
checking the basic (RFC3501) functionality of an IMAP server?
|
|
|
|
> For what it's worth, I've worked out how a store can be designed to do it.
|
|
> In such a store there is no particular benefit to MOVE over COPY; MOVE is
|
|
> comparable (slightly slower) to COPY in performance. Any store which has
|
|
> a slow COPY can not have a faster yet safe MOVE.
|
|
Your assumption is wrong. I've seen such store. I've shown you how this kind
|
|
of store might look like. You didn't listen. Period.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
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
|
|
|