34 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
34 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no Wed Apr 8 01:05:28 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:54 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] SEARCH semantics
|
|
In-Reply-To: <55246A71.27553.323D151D@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
|
|
References: <55246A71.27553.323D151D@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
|
|
Message-ID: <c94a9300-489f-4fca-87e6-992ccc1221e8@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
|
|
|
|
David Harris writes:
|
|
> 3: The following search is valid, according to the syntax in RFC3501:
|
|
>
|
|
> xx SEARCH OR OR <exp1> <exp2> <exp3>
|
|
>
|
|
> and allows an OR expression to cover three terms instead of
|
|
> just two. As such, it
|
|
> seems quite useful, but it would certainly have mystified my
|
|
> old search code (it was
|
|
> rubbish, as I've pointed out), and I was wondering how
|
|
> generally safe it would be to
|
|
> use this type of expression?
|
|
|
|
I've seen this kind of thing many times, e.g. OR OR FROM x TO x CC x, and I
|
|
think it's fairly widely used. IIRC the Symantec IMAP proxy uses nested ORs
|
|
en masse.
|
|
|
|
I agree about the vagueness with regard to searching. My best advice is to
|
|
do what seems useful to users, and make searching inclusive rather than
|
|
exact.
|
|
|
|
Arnt
|
|
|
|
|