Subject: RE: [lemonade] Alternate Solution to MobileMailSynchronizationOptimization - part 2

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:20:51 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of ext Stephane Maes
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 2:29 PM
...
> Agreed.

There is overlap.

> 
> In my view the difference is non persistence. 
> 

The differences are:
1) The filters are self-cleaning. There is no need for the client to do 
anything to turn them off. Opaque filters are by thier nature 
persistent, but there is no work on the clients part to maintain them.
2) Filters may be accumulated.
3) Filters are definitive. That is, once a session is in filtering mode the 
filter set is the only set available. So even if you issue a FETCH command
the criteria are applied to the response. The client will see a true abstract
folder for the duration of the filter. 

P-IMAP has two types of filters: notification filters and view filters. They
can differ. In MSGFILTER they are intended to be the same. So the client has
a consistent view of what is on the server.

4) Supports opaque filter names.

> There may be use case for that but for P-IMAP and its use 
> case, the filter must be permanent or the concept of mobile 
> repository and filters would not help and rather burden the user.

On the contrary I believe P-IMAP shifts more responsibility to the 
client. The client must know filter criteria in order to issue the
first XFILTER command. The client must be a configurator.

The TAG option of FILTER SET allows the client to use a name like 
DEFAULT, which all clients know. So no client requires any knowledge 
of criteria. FILTER SET also allows a knowledgeable client.

Mike

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade