Subject: Re: [MORG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-02.txt

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:08:03 -0800 (PST)

> I have not paid much attention to this discussion, but this caught my
> eye.
> 
> It would be cleaner to have a new command for multimailbox searching
> that always returns UIDs.
> 
> That way, all three searches would have the same set of search
> criteria.

Not to take one side or the other regarding a new command for multi-
mailbox search, but the "IN" clause that triggers multimailbox search
is not a search criterion.

   search =  "SEARCH" [SP search-source-opts] [SP search-return-opts]
           SP search-program

   search-source-opts =  "IN" SP "(" source-mbox [SP
           "(" scope-options ")"] ")"

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:38:26 -0800 (PST)

The less of that syntactical creeping featurism, the better.  CHARSET was 
a mistake; the return-ops a worse one.

>           "(" scope-options ")"] ")"

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:19:27 +0100

Mark Crispin writes:
> The less of that syntactical creeping featurism, the better.

I agree. I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again: By default 
the mailbox stuff should be a search-key. If there's a specific reason 
to do it differently, by all means, but if not, search-key is what 
(almost) everything else is, and there's value in uniformity.

Arnt