David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 00:34, 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. > > That is indeed almost precisely what I was looking for. Thank you. > > Btw I see only -09.
Hmm, maybe I haven't sent it yet ;-). I will double check. > Did you s/successfull/successful/ in ╖3 of -10 > already? No, this is fixed now. Thank you. > > The functionality you propose can be build as a small extension to CONDSTORE > > (and yes, other people already proposed something similar before). > > It's early here -- I'm not sure if there's any functionality I'd wanted > that isn't there, from a client's point of view. > > The only real difference I note is that I was trying to allow for the > option of a far more naОve server implementation, where the server > _only_ keeps 'HIGHESTMODSEQ' and doesn't actually keep MODSEQ for > individual messages -- or where it keeps MODSEQ only for the N most > recently changed messages. This might improve the adoption rate of the > extension while still allowing the majority of the benefit to be seen by > clients. I am not 100% sure, but I believe this can be done for the draft as written. If you can find any requirements that will prevent this, post a message to the mailing list and let's discuss. > I'm not particularly tied to that idea though -- from a client's point > of view, I'm perfectly happy without it. Cheers, Alexey Melnikov __________________________________________ R & D, ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect Watford, UK Work Phone: +44 1923 81 2877 Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel I speak for myself only, not for my employer. __________________________________________
