MBOX-Line: From mrc+imap at panda.com  Mon Oct 31 16:37:51 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:47 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] BODY.PEEK[section]<origin.size> FETCH response
In-Reply-To: <1320102709.31835.140660992941501@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <8F0DA5FA-FB07-4AFA-9C58-8F0927998343@ghoti.org><alpine.OSX.2.00.1110301823210.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com><CABa8R6uyrHJ6AqQoGfMcLztG-zovaVK4FEFep8ibpYc2-6b7ig@mail.gmail.com><alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311352000.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com><CABa8R6ugaAADsrvaS1Nnau5bi7k9728b+x00NcG1Nbxfk9xwsA@mail.gmail.com><75E51A44-91E4-48D1-BA82-789C82583ABC@iki.fi>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311532190.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1320102709.31835.140660992941501@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1110311633050.9034@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> FWIW, I always considered the implementation of string searching to be
>> implementation dependent. The only requirement was that simple
>> case-independent substring is recognized as compliant. I never intended
>> that a server be forbidden from implementing a smarter search (e.g.,
>> fuzzy) that returns more matching messages.
> Interesting.  That makes me feel a bit more comfortable about ignoring the
> full RFC 5051 i;unicode-casemap on searches, and only using it for sort.

You can not do that and claim compliance with RFC 5255.

RFC 5255 explicitly requires that you apply i;unicode-casemap in searches
as part of level 1 compliance.

If you do not claim RFC 5255 compliance then there is no particular reason
to implement i;unicode-casemap at all.

However, as far as I know, however, Cyrus always implemented a variant of
it from its inception; so you would actually be removing an aspect of it
that was in there from the onset. That is probably not a good idea.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

