The call is made from SOGo through SOPE and specifically the imap 4 handler which does the setannotate and getannotate commands.
Looking at those plus the existing annotation support, my (albeit brief) reading of store/fetch suggests there is handling for : STORE ANNOTATION FETCH ANNOTATION and these have the feel of being equivalent to SETANNOTATION and GETANNOTATION already. These two commands also seem to be custom versions added to SOPE for SOGo (the code from trunk at http://sope.opengroupware.org/en/source/index.html differs from the code from http://www.sogo.nu/downloads/backend.html). Now, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-00#section-7.1 suggests the SOGo commands are in-spec but http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/Drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-09.txt suggests Archiveopteryx is in spec. Since these are drafts, I suspect there is a final (which I've not found in a quick google search) and for whatever reason, each approach has used a different version of the specs. Do we have a situation where both are equivalent ? Would it be a fix to configure a patch to treat SET & GET as a STORE & FETCH and re-use the code which is there ? Metadata looks extremely similar but possibly something else; before making this too complex, I want to ask the question about using annotation first. Jim On 03/07/2014 20:58, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > RFC 5464 by the looks of it. > > That'll require one or two new tables; some of the annotation-related > code in imap/handlers/store.cpp and fetch.cpp may be copyable. > > Don't worry about the schema version stuff; if you write the rest I'm > sure Abhijit will feel an urge to do the necessary schema versioning. > > Arnt >
