On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:41:02PM -0700, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lefteris Chatzibarbas wrote: > > By that you mean to send 2 SEARCH commands with less that 50 deep nesting > > each? Is that right? > > No, I mean doing: > > OR (OR FROM "a" OR FROM "b" FROM "c") OR FROM "d" OR FROM "e" FROM "f" > instead of > OR FROM "a" OR FROM "b" OR FROM "c" OR FROM "d" OR FROM "e" FROM "f" > > In other words, break the chain into smaller chains. > > > I forgot to mention that my SEARCH commands were just examples in order > > to show the problem, and such queries would probably be useless... > > > > Anyway, are there any plans to remove this limitation? > > Perhaps you should give me a real example of why you feel the limitation > should be removed. The intention of the limitation is to block abusive > search requests.
I didn't know this could be done. Now it's crystal clear to me what you mean and how one can overcome the 50 deep nesting limit. Thanks. I have another question though: If we have a program that based on user defined filters generates SEARCH queries and suppose the filters says: if from "foo" or from "bar" or from "buzz" or from "qux" or from "quux" ... then delete and this filter may get bigger with many more searching criteria. What would be the recommended format of the SEARCH command that would be generated from the user's filter in order for it to scale and be able to handle 50,100 or 500 searching criteria? Thanks again, Lefteris Chatzibarbas
