40 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
40 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU Fri Apr 6 09:39:38 2007
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:39 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RENAME Inbox
|
|
In-Reply-To: <87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
|
|
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
<87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, David Rauschenbach wrote:
|
|
> So you're saying it is OK if the INBOX's UIDVALIDITY goes from 3,000 down to
|
|
> 1?
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that!
|
|
|
|
Ken's question about UIDVALIDITY being "reset" meant "set to a new value".
|
|
I know Ken personally. He is far too intelligent and informed to propose
|
|
implementing a UIDVALIDITY going backwards.
|
|
|
|
Nonetheless, I understand your concern; and thank you for bringing this
|
|
question up. We need to be careful about the words that we use. What was
|
|
obvious to Ken and me was clearly not-obvious to you, even though we all
|
|
knew that UIDVALIDITY can not ever go backwards. You were (rightfully!)
|
|
alarmed.
|
|
|
|
We should keep in mind that not everyone is fully cognizant of the ins and
|
|
outs of IMAP; and we should not rely upon what is "obvious" to resolve
|
|
ambiguities in our wording.
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for a good reminder!
|
|
|
|
-- Mark --
|
|
|
|
http://panda.com/mrc
|
|
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
|
|
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
|
|
|