44 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
44 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
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
|
|
|