MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Thu Feb 21 14:07:36 2008
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:41 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SEARCH SUBJECT
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.1.00.0802211344070.4860@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
References: <1203623023.4901.242.camel@hurina>
	<47BDE0F2.4070704@watson.ibm.com>
	<alpine.WNT.1.00.0802211344070.4860@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>
Message-ID: <1203631656.4901.270.camel@hurina>

On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:56 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
> I agree.  I feel that a server is allowed to implement fuzzy string 
> searching, with case-independence being the only absolute requirement.
> 
> More specifically, I never intended to forbid fuzzy matching, and 
> deliberately left it open-ended to allow implementations to experiment 
> with what worked best.  [Google considered it good news when I told them 
> this was something in their server that I thought did NOT need fixing!]

So, how is this related to what you said about substring searches a year
ago? 

http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/2006-December/000328.html

I doubt Google (or anyone else implementing fuzzy matching) supports
substring matching.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20080222/71af67d5/attachment.sig>
