Subject: Re: [MORG] Review: draft-ietf-morg-fuzzy-search-02

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:52:48 +0000

On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 14:58 +0200, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> > Yes, I think SORT (RELEVANCY) should be required for that.  RFC 5267
> > isn't super clear on if SORT supports PARTIAL, but I guess it should
> > according to ABNF.
> 
> Can we get clarification on that? Even add an example to fuzzy search 
> showing a client finding the top-10 relevant items.

In my understanding it does, and Dovecot supports it, but I don't know
if Dave or other implementers were thinking the same.. Dave?

I was planning on using this example:

C: D02 SORT RETURN (PARTIAL 1:10) (RELEVANCY) UTF-8 FUZZY TEXT "World"
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "D02") PARTIAL (1:10 19,80,85:86,95,102:103,111,113:114)
S: D02 OK Sort completed.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:20:44 +0000

> if Dave or other implementers were thinking the same.. Dave?
That's basically what CONTEXT=SORT is for:

   Servers advertising CONTEXT=SORT also advertise the SORT  
capability,
   as described in [SORT], support the extended SORT command syntax
   described in Section 3, and accept three additional return options
   for this extended SORT.

   These additional return options allow for notifications of changes  
to
   the results of SEARCH or SORT commands, and also allow for access  
to
   partial results.

I don't think that's anything less than super-clear.

> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "D02") PARTIAL (1:10  

That's somewhat deceptive, since the results are in UID order, so it  
could be misread.

What that should provide is the 10 most relevant matches, of course -  
in this example it might be viewed that, as these are also the ten  
first matching messages, there's some implicit "order by UID" going  
on. A random.shuffle makes it more clear:

C: D02 SORT RETURN (PARTIAL 1:10) (RELEVANCY) UTF-8 FUZZY TEXT "World"
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "D02") PARTIAL (1:10  
102,95,114,103,113,111,86,10,80,85)
S: D02 OK Sort completed.

Dave.

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:30:16 +0000

> I don't think that's anything less than super-clear.

Oh, right. I was mostly just reading through sections 3.* and 4.4.

> > 19,80,85:86,95,102:103,111,113:114)

Right, I didn't notice that because it was a real SORT reply that just
happened to return the results in UID order..

> S: * ESEARCH (TAG "D02") PARTIAL (1:10  

Changed.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:34:42 +0000

> Oh, right. I was mostly just reading through sections 3.* and 4.4.
Reading the whole spec is so overrated.

> > S: D02 OK Sort completed.

Thanks.

Dave.