User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Far too kind

Far too kind

Posted Jan 8, 2010 21:53 UTC (Fri) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283)
In reply to: Far too kind by foom
Parent article: A look at Thunderbird 3

Speed is an issue, true - Courier-IMAP should do indexing and store the results in a database. Using this sort of method I can't see why server-end search wouldn't be almost as fast as local search.

But IMAP not handling multiple mailboxes seems like sort of a misplaced complaint. IMAP is the protocol - the client should be handling connections to multiple servers in a seamless fashion if that's what is desired.


(Log in to post comments)

Far too kind

Posted Jan 9, 2010 0:45 UTC (Sat) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> IMAP not handling multiple mailboxes seems like sort of a misplaced complaint.

The client can certainly work around it, yes. But it's a pain in the ass design. For example, if you want to wait for new mail to appear in multiple mailboxes, you have to make a bunch of connections to the same server, one per mailbox, just so that each one can sit idle, watching for new mail in the one single mailbox. And some clients try to do this. Others give up push notification, and poll for new mail periodically.

Back to the problem with SEARCH: To implement multi-mailbox search, you need to invoke the SELECT command and the SEARCH command once per mailbox. (remember: this is all on a single server!) With my 44 mailboxes, that'd requires 44 SELECT/SEARCH commands. You could parallelize it by using multiple connections, but that's still a bunch of extra work. I find it unlikely that you'll be able to make that competitive in speed with a single search on your mail client's fulltext index.

Far too kind

Posted Jan 9, 2010 1:18 UTC (Sat) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283) [Link]

My fault - you were actually using the term "mailbox" correctly! I work with Windows guys who never refer to them as anything but "folders" and it rubs off. I was assuming multiple servers/accounts in my previous reply.

Ok, fair enough. Maybe there should be an MSELECT extension that specifies on which mailboxes the following commands should be run...

Ugh, then you have a modal response set, as responses run after an MSELECT will need to include a mailbox name as well as whatever ordinary response they give.

Maybe better to define a MULTISEARCH extension that returns "mailbox/message#"... results. Should we talk to the LEMONADE guys? :)

Far too kind

Posted Jan 9, 2010 1:46 UTC (Sat) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283) [Link]

Actually, a little googling suggests they're considering the implementation of multi-mailbox search already: http://www.ietf.org/old/2009/proceedings/09mar/minutes/mo...

Far too kind

Posted Jan 16, 2010 11:24 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

they are also working on implementing fuzzy search to allow ranked results for search-engine like use.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-fuzzy-search-01


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds