MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Fri Feb 22 04:26:04 2008
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:41 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SEARCH SUBJECT
In-Reply-To: <1203640514.4901.280.camel@hurina>
References: <1203623023.4901.242.camel@hurina>
	<47BDE0F2.4070704@watson.ibm.com>
	<alpine.WNT.1.00.0802211344070.4860@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
	<1203631656.4901.270.camel@hurina>
	<alpine.WNT.1.00.0802211411191.4800@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
	<1203640514.4901.280.camel@hurina>
Message-ID: <sWp9kbt6bwAYdSeuA+mt/w.md5@lochnagar.oryx.com>

Timo Sirainen writes:
> What do you think the fuzzy matching fields could be?
>
> ...
>  - FROM, TO, CC, BCC real name fields, user@domain maybe?

Both fuzzy, inexact and exact matching is useful. Addresses are 
important in email, which means there are many different useful things 
one can do with them ;)

> - HEADER x y?

I like the idea of fuzzy matching on unstructured fields. Not so keen on 
fuzzily matching structured fields.

>  ...
>  - Date searches not(?)

Date searches are slightly fuzzy now. I'm not sure my code handles 
timezone the way the RFC says to.

Arnt

