# IMAP UID proof
**Notations**
- $h$: the hash of a message, $\mathbb{H}$ is the set of hashes
- $i$: the UID of a message $(i \in \mathbb{N})$
- $f$: a flag attributed to a message (it's a string), we write
$\mathbb{F}$ the set of possible flags
- if $M$ is a map (aka a dictionnary), if $x$ has no assigned value in
$M$ we write $M [x] = \bot$ or equivalently $x \not\in M$. If $x$ has a value
in the map we write $x \in M$ and $M [x] \neq \bot$
**State**
- A map $I$ such that $I [h]$ is the UID of the message whose hash is
$h$ is the mailbox, or $\bot$ if there is no such message
- A map $F$ such that $F [h]$ is the set of flags attributed to the
message whose hash is $h$
- $v$: the UIDVALIDITY value
- $n$: the UIDNEXT value
- $s$: an internal sequence number that is mostly equal to UIDNEXT but
also grows when mails are deleted
**Operations**
- MAIL\_ADD$(h, i)$: the value of $i$ that is put in this operation is
the value of $s$ in the state resulting of all already known operations,
i.e. $s (O_{gen})$ in the notation below where $O_{gen}$ is
the set of all operations known at the time when the MAIL\_ADD is generated.
Moreover, such an operation can only be generated if $I (O_{gen}) [h]
= \bot$, i.e. for a mail $h$ that is not already in the state at
$O_{gen}$.
- MAIL\_DEL$(h)$
- FLAG\_ADD$(h, f)$
- FLAG\_DEL$(h, f)$
**Algorithms**
**apply** MAIL\_ADD$(h, i)$:
*if* $i < s$:
$v \leftarrow v + s - i$
*if* $F [h] = \bot$:
$F [h] \leftarrow F_{initial}$
$I [h] \leftarrow s$
$s \leftarrow s + 1$
$n \leftarrow s$
**apply** MAIL\_DEL$(h)$:
$I [h] \leftarrow \bot$
$F [h] \leftarrow \bot$
$s \leftarrow s + 1$
**apply** FLAG\_ADD$(h, f)$:
*if* $h \in F$:
$F [h] \leftarrow F [h] \cup \{ f \}$
**apply** FLAG\_DEL$(h, f)$:
*if* $h \in F$:
$F [h] \leftarrow F [h] \backslash \{ f \}$
**More notations**
- $o$ is an operation such as MAIL\_ADD, MAIL\_DEL, etc. $O$ is a set of
operations. Operations embed a timestamp, so a set of operations $O$ can be
written as $O = [o_1, o_2, \ldots, o_n]$ by ordering them by timestamp.
- if $o \in O$, we write $O_{\leqslant o}$, $O_{< o}$, $O_{\geqslant
o}$, $O_{> o}$ the set of items of $O$ that are respectively earlier or
equal, strictly earlier, later or equal, or strictly later than $o$. In
other words, if we write $O = [o_1, \ldots, o_n]$, where $o$ is a certain
$o_i$ in this sequence, then:
$$
\begin{aligned}
O_{\leqslant o} &= \{ o_1, \ldots, o_i \}\\
O_{< o} &= \{ o_1, \ldots, o_{i - 1} \}\\
O_{\geqslant o} &= \{ o_i, \ldots, o_n \}\\
O_{> o} &= \{ o_{i + 1}, \ldots, o_n \}
\end{aligned}
$$
- If $O$ is a set of operations, we write $I (O)$, $F (O)$, $n (O), s
(O)$, and $v (O)$ the values of $I, F, n, s$ and $v$ in the state that
results of applying all of the operations in $O$ in their sorted order. (we
thus write $I (O) [h]$ the value of $I [h]$ in this state)
**Hypothesis:**
An operation $o$ can only be in a set $O$ if it was
generated after applying operations of a set $O_{gen}$ such that
$O_{gen} \subset O$ (because causality is respected in how we deliver
operations). Sets of operations that do not respect this property are excluded
from all of the properties, lemmas and proofs below.
**Simplification:** We will now exclude FLAG\_ADD and FLAG\_DEL
operations, as they do not manipulate $n$, $s$ and $v$, and adding them should
have no impact on the properties below.
**Small lemma:** If there are no FLAG\_ADD and FLAG\_DEL operations,
then $s (O) = | O |$. This is easy to see because the possible operations are
only MAIL\_ADD and MAIL\_DEL, and both increment the value of $s$ by 1.
**Defnition:** If $o$ is a MAIL\_ADD$(h, i)$ operation, and $O$ is a
set of operations such that $o \in O$, then we define the following value:
$$
C (o, O) = s (O_{< o}) - i
$$
We say that $C (o, O)$ is the *number of conflicts of $o$ in $O$*: it
corresponds to the number of operations that were added before $o$ in $O$ that
were not in $O_{gen}$.
**Property:**
We have that:
$$
v (O) = \sum_{o \in O} C (o, O)
$$
Or in English: $v (O)$ is the sum of the number of conflicts of all of the
MAIL\_ADD operations in $O$. This is easy to see because indeed $v$ is
incremented by $C (o, O)$ for each operation $o \in O$ that is applied.
**Property:**
If $O$ and $O'$ are two sets of operations, and $O \subseteq O'$, then:
$$
\begin{aligned}
\forall o \in O, \qquad C (o, O) \leqslant C (o, O')
\end{aligned}
$$
This is easy to see because $O_{< o} \subseteq O'_{< o}$ and $C (o, O') - C
(o, O) = s (O'_{< o}) - s (O_{< o}) = | O'_{< o} | - | O_{< o} | \geqslant
0$
**Theorem:**
If $O$ and $O'$ are two sets of operations:
$$
\begin{aligned}
O \subseteq O' & \Rightarrow & v (O) \leqslant v (O')
\end{aligned}
$$
**Proof:**
$$
\begin{aligned}
v (O') &= \sum_{o \in O'} C (o, O')\\
& \geqslant \sum_{o \in O} C (o, O') \qquad \text{(because $O \subseteq
O'$)}\\
& \geqslant \sum_{o \in O} C (o, O) \qquad \text{(because $\forall o \in
O, C (o, O) \leqslant C (o, O')$)}\\
& \geqslant v (O)
\end{aligned}
$$
**Theorem:**
If $O$ and $O'$ are two sets of operations, such that $O \subset O'$,
and if there are two different mails $h$ and $h'$ $(h \neq h')$ such that $I
(O) [h] = I (O') [h']$
then:
$$v (O) < v (O')$$
**Proof:**
We already know that $v (O) \leqslant v (O')$ because of the previous theorem.
We will now look at the sum:
$$
v (O') = \sum_{o \in O'} C (o, O')
$$
and show that there is at least one term in this sum that is strictly larger
than the corresponding term in the other sum:
$$
v (O) = \sum_{o \in O} C (o, O)
$$
Let $o$ be the last MAIL\_ADD$(h, \_)$ operation in $O$, i.e. the operation
that gives its definitive UID to mail $h$ in $O$, and similarly $o'$ be the
last MAIL\_ADD($h', \_$) operation in $O'$.
Let us write $I = I (O) [h] = I (O') [h']$
$o$ is the operation at position $I$ in $O$, and $o'$ is the operation at
position $I$ in $O'$. But $o \neq o'$, so if $o$ is not the operation at
position $I$ in $O'$ then it has to be at a later position $I' > I$ in $O'$,
because no operations are removed between $O$ and $O'$, the only possibility
is that some other operations (including $o'$) are added before $o$. Therefore
we have that $C (o, O') > C (o, O)$, i.e. at least one term in the sum above
is strictly larger in the first sum than in the second one. Since all other
terms are greater or equal, we have $v (O') > v (O)$.
