Re: [Imap-protocol] SEARCH semantics

Hmm, maybe I got it wrong.  I don't recall what originally led me to 
think that SEARCH was supposed to be strictly string-based but I do 
observe that RFC 3501 states:

       In all search keys that use strings, a message matches the key if
       the string is a substring of the field.  The matching is
       case-insensitive.

At 11:18 AM 4/9/2015, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>On 09/04/2015 13:59, Pete Maclean wrote:
>>If I understand them correctly, using such an indexer means 
>>providing a word-based search.  Now, as I noted in another message, 
>>that might be a very good choice these days since that is what a 
>>lot of people are accustomed to.  But IMAP promises a string-based 
>>search for which you would want to use hashes based on n-grams instead.
>I was under impression that Mark Crispin thought that being more 
>flexible when searching (i.e. using word-based search) was quite 
>acceptable according to RFC 3501.
>
>>At 02:31 PM 4/8/2015, Hoa V. Dinh wrote:
>>>You probably want to use a full text indexer such as Lucene / 
>>>Elastic Search in this case.
>>>It will prevent the server from iterating on each email.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Hoa V. Dinh
>>>
>>>On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>>>An important thing to be aware of - if you have iPhone users. iOS 
>>>>since version 7
>>>>has done a BODY search on every folder if you do a search. That's 
>>>>prohibitively
>>>>expensive if you're scanning emails every time.

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol