MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm  Fri May 20 14:43:40 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Thoughts on keyword improvements/enhancements
In-Reply-To: <1305918054.10421.369.camel@hurina>
References: <20110518210716.GA12636@brong.net>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1105181519330.24932@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<20110519045851.GA23466@brong.net>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1105182203320.24932@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<20110519220352.GA12141@brong.net>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1105191513210.24932@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<20110520002607.Horde.lf1bSoF5lbhN1gl-aoNHDLA@bigworm.curecanti.org>
	<1305883385.10421.294.camel@hurina>
	<20110520121957.Horde.chpUaIF5lbhN1rDN6FN3DTA@bigworm.curecanti.org>
	<1305918054.10421.369.camel@hurina>
Message-ID: <20110520214340.GA1097@brong.net>

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:00:54PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Not having an explicit keyword/label separation would make this easy for
> servers to implement it (and clients too, I'd think!). All I'd have to
> do is remove some restrictions and add a bit of code to show a keyword
> only if it's a valid atom or if utf8-keywords is ENABLEd.

You haven't addressed the case of "STORE FLAGS" (not +FLAGS) here, where
you would have to decide if you implicitly clear a flag based on the
ENABLE command.  That adds more complexity to the server.

Bron ( of course, few clients actually do that )

