Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Thu, 23 January 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7EB1200FE for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:41:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwlhFo5ml5hn for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018A612011B for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04952C001B; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:46:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1579801569; bh=8GbQjC6xwVhTFxJ7+YPOc00HQ9D02ezLMuuhhaLmcc8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cDlH3X5HyW5XqlbJgPRaTnDr+Fca17Y8/pJN2+ZGLIH4JbnfTmb1z3DUbXMyR61lB RE1NlZCbR3OQeS/gnxor8046pfj0rGvr+5MXDkqpnGuiSXUvAIi5dXG0fEG10h2HYI 7iTl99lkBNAzuc3ejrfVhFy/Ph3KDpRe8/4nPAOY=
Received: from by (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1579801568-27478-27476/9/66; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:46:08 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:41:48 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.1 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:41:52 -0000

I think the key question is: Underspecifed and vague about it, or 
underspecified and defiant about it.

God knows that what I suggested isn't well-written. It's a first draft, 
written in one go while I was waiting impatiently for a slow, slow program 
to finish. First drafts are too wordy 99% of the time and the circumstances 
weren't favourable either. But that doesn't matter. Any good text should 
IMO have the traits a) explicit about what it doesn't standardise and b) 
explicit that we want existing servers to remain compliant, warts and all.

The key question is whether you all agree with me about a+b. If you do 
agree with me I can refine the prose. Or Alexey does.