MBOX-Line: From alexey.melnikov at isode.com  Thu Apr  9 08:18:21 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SEARCH semantics
In-Reply-To: <201504091259.t39CxfHJ007474@mxout24.cac.washington.edu>
References: <201504091259.t39CxfHJ007474@mxout24.cac.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <5526983D.4000503@isode.com>

On 09/04/2015 13:59, Pete Maclean wrote:
> If I understand them correctly, using such an indexer means providing 
> a word-based search.  Now, as I noted in another message, that might 
> be a very good choice these days since that is what a lot of people 
> are accustomed to.  But IMAP promises a string-based search for which 
> you would want to use hashes based on n-grams instead.
I was under impression that Mark Crispin thought that being more 
flexible when searching (i.e. using word-based search) was quite 
acceptable according to RFC 3501.

> At 02:31 PM 4/8/2015, Hoa V. Dinh wrote:
>> You probably want to use a full text indexer such as Lucene / Elastic 
>> Search in this case.
>> It will prevent the server from iterating on each email.
>>
>> -- 
>> Hoa V. Dinh
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>> An important thing to be aware of - if you have iPhone users. iOS 
>>> since version 7
>>> has done a BODY search on every folder if you do a search. That's 
>>> prohibitively
>>> expensive if you're scanning emails every time.


