Subject: [MORG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:15:29 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Message Organization Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension
	Author(s)       : B. Leiba, A. Melnikov
	Filename        : draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-04.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2010-11-08

The IMAP4 specification allows the searching only of the selected
mailbox.  A user often wants to search multiple mailboxes, and a
client that wishes to support this must issue a series of SELECT and
SEARCH commands, waiting for each to complete before moving on to the
next.  This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
with one command, limiting the round-trips and waiting for various
searches to complete, and not requiring disruption of the currently
selected mailbox.  This also uses MAILBOX and TAG fields in ESEARCH
responses, allowing a client to pipeline the searches if it chooses.

Note

A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community.  Discussion
and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to
[email-masked].

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:16:39 +0800

I have posted a new version of multimailbox-search.  I believe this
version takes care of all comments so far, and that this version is
now ready for working group last call.  Other chairs, if you agree,
please issue a working group last call on this version.

Thanks,
Barry

---

From: "Georg C. F. Greve" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:44:47 +0100

Hi all,

This is the first time I'm actively participating, having joined this list not 
so long ago. So I apologize for questions that may seem stupid, or for things 
that may already have been discussed before I joined. In other words: I hope 
for your understanding and pointers in the right direction.

As to the multimailbox search, my question is whether the ANNOTATE Extension 
(http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5257) has been taken into account?

As you know, we're providing a groupware solution that uses IMAP for its 
central information store, using annotations to identify special mail boxes 
for specific purposes, or configuration parameters.

So if it were possible to narrow the search by annotations and their specific 
values, it would be for instance possible to actually issue a search across 
all calendars that a user has access to.

Best regards,
Georg

-- 
Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Zürich, Switzerland

e: [email-masked]
t: +41 78 904 43 33
w: http://kolabsys.com

pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve

---

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:32:30 -0800 (PST)

> As to the multimailbox search, my question is whether the ANNOTATE
> Extension (http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5257) has been taken
> into account?

Should you be using METADATA instead (RFC5464)?  ANNOTATE is for
messages, METADATA is for mailboxes/servers...

---

From: "Georg C. F. Greve" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:04:17 +0100

> messages, METADATA is for mailboxes/servers...

Indeed.

My apologies. I was in a meeting and was typing this in multitasking mode, 
apparently picking out the wrong RFC because the draft used to be called 
annotatemore and that is how many are still referring to it... 

Thank you for the clarification!

Best regards,
Georg

-- 
Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Zürich, Switzerland

e: [email-masked]
t: +41 78 904 43 33
w: http://kolabsys.com

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:17:48 +0000

> please issue a working group last call on this version.

What about the "open issues" section?

Some simple ways to get rid of them:

> Interaction with IMAP Contexts [RFC5267] needs to be defined.

a) Disallow them
b) Allow them when mailboxes include "selected", and make it apply only
to whichever mailbox is selected at the time.

> There's a suggestion to add an EXCLUDE clause (with a nested search
>    criteria).  For example, one might want to search "personal" but
>    exclude "mailboxes (Trash Spam)".

A server might be able to do this internally as well, similar to how
SPECIAL-USE's \Flagged mailbox works. EXCLUDE itself is too complex I
think, but maybe something like "personal-useful" which is like
"personal", but server is allowed to drop some "unwanted" mailboxes out
of it.