Subject: [MORG] Address search

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:28:16 -0500

> (Open issue: I think the localpart ought to be considered case  
> insensitive. All agree?_)

I'd hope so.

> The following fourteen address fields MUST be supported: From, To,  
> Cc, Bcc, Reply-To, Return-Path, Sender, Resent-Bcc, Resent-Cc,  
> Resent-From, Resent-Sender and Resent-To.

There's only 12.. Fourteen also mentioned later in document.

> All three search keys use either a client-specified list of address  
> fields, or all supported fields.

Is it actually useful to support searching all fields?

> The server MUST check address fields in the top-level message, and  
> MAY also check header fields in subsidiary message/rfc822 objects.  
> (Open issue: SHOULD also? Or even MUST?)

There's currently no support for that anywhere else in IMAP, so I  
think MAY is as far as it should go, if even that. If searching inside  
message/rfc822 objects is wanted perhaps a new extension that adds  
support for searching them with all SEARCH parameters (e.g. SEARCH  
MIME SUBJECT "hello world")?

> C: a UID SEARCH ADDRESS ANY [email-masked]

ANY shouldn't be there.

> 3.5. Client Fallbacks
..
> Matching a localpart can be done either with "FROM <fred@" (which
..
> Note that some widely-used servers process address fields as part of  
> parsing, so that e.g. "From: <[email-masked]>" may be rewritten as  
> "From: [email-masked]" or the other way around. Some of these  
> fallback searches may yield different results on different servers.

Right. So is it really even useful to suggest using "FROM <fred@"?