On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:45:25PM -0700, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Please, have a look at draft-melnikov-imap-condstore-10.txt. Your timestamp is > called modseq (modification sequence) in the draft. FLAGS-VALIDITY is called > HIGHESTMODSEQ in the document. > The functionality you propose can be build as a small extension to CONDSTORE > (and yes, other people already proposed something similar before).
There's no way I'm going to store extra 64bit per message in mailbox just for this extension, but looks like it wouldn't prevent from using the tricks I mentioned earlier. Instead of storing it for each message, I'd use my existing transaction log file to remember last few changes. MODSEQ would be last_MODSEQ + position in log file. MODSEQ of messages not in log file would all be last_MODSEQ. Do you think this would cause any problems? Also do you really have to return MODSEQ messageset for each SEARCH and SORT? You're just returning the search results twice. Why not add the MODSEQ into the untagged reply itself? ie. "* SEARCH 1 2 4 10 (MODSEQ 123)". Since client specifically asked for the MODSEQ, there's no compatibility issues.
