3 ms·
Even so, isn't this a violation of the IMAP standard, which says that UIDs are, by design, not permanent identifiers, but UID + UIDVALIDITY is? (I don't know mu
by jrootabega 4y ago
Even so, isn't this a violation of the IMAP standard, which says that UIDs are, by design, not permanent identifiers, but UID + UIDVALIDITY is? (I don't know much about IMAP.)
- encryptluks2 4y agoIt is definitely a recommendation, but UIDVALIDITY just checks the folder from what I understand. Hashing the entire message would be the best way from my understanding to sync messages.
- cryptonector 4y agoNo, RFC 3501 says > The unique identifier of a message MUST NOT change during the > session, and SHOULD NOT change between sessions. Any change of > unique identifiers between sessions MUST be detectable using the > UIDVALIDITY mechanism discussed below. Persistent unique identifiers > are required for a client to resynchronize its state from a previous > session with the server (e.g., disconnected or offline access > clients); this is discussed further in [[IMAP-DISC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3501#ref-IMAP-DISC https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3501#ref-IMAP-DISC)]. so, "SHOULD NOT", but in practice it's really hard to make {UID, UIDVALIDITY} assignments persistent and unique, so IMAP servers don't, and as you can see, they are allowed to not. I.e., it's perfectly compliant to generate a new UIDVALIDITY for each session and then assign UIDs to emails in folders when you open them