[MORG] FUZZY
Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> Tue, 26 July 2011 11:40 UTC
Return-Path: <tss@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: morg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: morg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FD821F85C0 for <morg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id myQsRYgTFTO2 for <morg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7E621F85B9 for <morg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.2] (a88-112-255-76.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.255.76]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693E61AE877A for <morg@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:40:17 +0300 (EEST)
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
To: morg <morg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:40:13 +0300
Message-ID: <1311680413.10421.1216.camel@hurina>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [MORG] FUZZY
X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Organization <morg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/morg>
List-Post: <mailto:morg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:40:16 -0000
I finally actually implemented this myself and noticed two things that should have been mentioned in the RFC: 1. SEARCH/SORT can be asked to return RELEVANCY scores without the ALL option, which makes it somewhat pointless since there is no message -> score mapping. I guess there could still be some use cases for it, so not really a problem. 2. RFC 4731 says that MIN/MAX/ALL MUST NOT be returned when there are no search results. I guess RELEVANCY should have had the same text. I wonder if it's now better to return it with empty list or just not return it at all..
- [MORG] FUZZY Timo Sirainen