[no subject]

[dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Re: Use of LIST-EXTENDED

References: <20923.1138289158.031384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 <EDB0F489-B5E4-41A0-96E4-C0A0D8ECA4DB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In-Reply-To: <EDB0F489-B5E4-41A0-96E4-C0A0D8ECA4DB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Message-Id: <17504.1138661237.130313@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

From: Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc:  <ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"



On Mon Jan 30 19:48:51 2006, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Anybody else, would you use LIST-EXTENDED if it went forward in its 

>  *current* form?  Or only if it did hypothetical extensions such as 

>  the one outlined by Dave?



The point of the hypothetical extension is mainly that RECURSIVEMATCH 

may actually be the wrong thing. The only circumstances where descent 

criteria are the same as for listing criteria (where listing criteria 

are normal selection options, I forget the correct term) are for 

"views" of the mailbox heirarchy, I think.



Currently, we have only one such view, that of Subscribed mailboxes. 

We may have more in the future, but I can easily think of various 

possibilities for cases where descent criteria differ from listing 

criteria.



Arnt's point - that the one-size-fits-all syntax for extended data 

items is a little ugly - I've also run into, both in the hypothetical 

RECENT extension I outlined, plus any number of other more complex 

extensions I've outlined privately. At this stage, I can't conceive 

of any extended data items I'd like the server to send me 

unilaterally, so I suspect Arnt's broken record needs another spin, 

as it were.



That all said, I've implemented LIST-EXTENDED and POSTADDRESS, as 

well as LISTEXT/LIST-SUBSCRIBED (because I was bored). The RECENT 

extension can be achieved by pipelining LIST commands, easily enough, 

as can every extension I've contemplated, so I'm hardly stating that 

my concerns are show-stoppers, I'm merely questioning whether they've 

been adequately reviewed.



Dave.

-- 

           You see things; and you say "Why?"

   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"

    - George Bernard Shaw