Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search

Brandon Long <> Thu, 23 January 2020 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6AE12001B for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q_YJsTwTAGzx for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B6EB120047 for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i4so91636vkc.3 for <>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:37:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2m5uLPVCiFHLFjHDmsm+0j5Tc3KgPLSaScvpfq5+SWw=; b=sIa2cF1Zrhde7GmjXJPopVuaRlSBT2dez0HCRYkmDugatCPiFMnO34SzQGuauSbP3H RG7lvAJwiGkPAZoJl7Omh2Z3SbNuo4aIBVabhcrOy11QwthikfKZ2Mq5gb4zkM0jsGXA TjLjiEGighgTLhYDvahYiDS0c0AsMPWm8gt7vnH/DrQHlNjHchptozorviGtHsGfUfaq hU5jcZk0KgS8r78Ck/Lag7qoedhkLdMhZeRM50qGHD+MCeiIAgQYbBlyHaEuJnKl5PKo NyD+8scIyg+TSRKpvLl/Hk5T7ruX6GpbybDMFTMmvHMkJayVbZ5L3PjjHgXuY3ggAeZD F80w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2m5uLPVCiFHLFjHDmsm+0j5Tc3KgPLSaScvpfq5+SWw=; b=ZNn0x2ey8rnzvGDHwCMpcq3Z8wPpmoohrFDKopyhb2AlPds6ywvC4VyiLN/9XEY14E lyvnpH4dXfGk+NsHwULZrBz0PQXn2OA70XCKcH3GoBBc5iKGFi5jNk94QVOVDOaMIUlS dlnVjFnnk2VgBiHCs/5b150IlJvfjcyDcM4MopWSiM72WKk9gP4qqVmq2gj6qVSQjW2F GuOdFze8Ex47NJOqb8iia/xplTjFXQwcVd/uf5nx3KobYu5pov46oePhioOSLBa+R3hR GMqj2GiTzZXRILzFP8NNY6QKolV/Ajj1fHgu7d/Q2668s/g8PtbYZ1TNYb9e0bLf7tWJ 6irA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWNM2iwDMCuEoZApf1/K1dNKKHt3SrUOf9u4391bNiN7KLaH/gR fxCVqk3GW5ZoWHCwy1VQ4UOwoKRpQ4QtvuM9DLchgWE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynI8KUy9/zX/r1ki9+QmvoWiQcTyhKJsojmCiSuhb1y/yqHKk0F3pZ+UhE+CuTqaWSCAAtdIcDOgkazucTrxI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9b0f:: with SMTP id d15mr251880vke.47.1579819027746; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:37:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Brandon Long <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:36:56 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6038f059cd647a6"
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 22:37:12 -0000

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:41 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen <>

> 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.

as an author of one of the servers which definitely took liberties, I do
agree with a+b