Subject: Re: [lemonade] Taking the knife to METADATA

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:04:41 -0400

Hi Alexey,

--On March 14, 2008 9:50:30 PM +0000 Alexey Melnikov 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> If you want searching, then write an extension to this extension that
>> does use LISTEXT.
>
> But it is possible to search for everything else in IMAP (headers, text
> in body parts, flags, etc.), so lack of search would be awkward.

That maybe true at a message level, but its not true at a mailbox level. 
i.e. without LISTEXT there is no way to search for mailboxes containing 
unseen messages. Even with LISTEXT there is no way to search for mailboxes 
on which I have the 'w' ACL right. So I don't agree that lack of search in 
this case is a hinderance. If it is, then we extend METADATA with LISTEXT, 
but that won't be present in the "base" METADATA spec.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:40:12 +0000

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> That maybe true at a message level, but its not true at a mailbox 
> level. i.e. without LISTEXT there is no way to search for mailboxes 
> containing unseen messages. Even with LISTEXT there is no way to 
> search for mailboxes on which I have the 'w' ACL right.

That is a bad example, as ACLs are not exposed in LISTEXT. Besides I 
don't see much point searching for access rights, they are different 
objects from human readable strings.

> So I don't agree that lack of search in this case is a hinderance. If 
> it is, then we extend METADATA with LISTEXT, but that won't be present 
> in the "base" METADATA spec.

I am not sure I will survive this change again :-).
Note that that searching for metadata doesn't necessarily need LISTEXT.