Subject: body test?

From: John Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 14:48:31 -0700

I searched the archive and found only a couple of ancient messages that
discussed this, and then only in passing.  There is no body test.  One of
those messages suggested it was too expensive in general (which it may well
be); another that it was fodder for a future extension (which it also may
well be).

I'm particularly interested in what others think of the tradeoffs of end-user
usefulness vs added costs in performance and complexity of implementation.
As a user, I want this.  As an implementor, I'm not sure.  Comments?

-- John

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:10:48 -0700

I think a body test would be a useful extension.  I can see an 
implementer choosing to either not support it, offer limited support, 
or full support.  By limited support I mean perhaps only the first xx 
octets of the body can be searched, and perhaps MIME decoding is or 
is not done.  There would need to be names for each optional 
subfeature, for extension capability reporting.