Re: [Nmh-workers] exciting new stuff for 2.0 (IMAP proposal)

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> This could be

> done with a file on the server, since IMAP allows fairly free form
> file retrieval, 

Don't count on that.  Only uw-imap thinks it's a file server.  Most 
servers will enforce at least minimal RFC2822 compliance on the data 
they serve up, let alone accept via APPEND.

> or it could be done with flags where the server permits
> the definition of new flags. 
Yes, and this is much more portable than the hack you describe above.  
But beware of namespace issues.  Twice (thrice?) upon a time I started 
on a draft that would allow for a reserved-for-vendors chunk of the flag 
namespace.  I really should finish the damned thing.

> I don't think there would be performance
> issues with either option, but using flags is definitely better for
> data integrity where the mail might be accessed by different clients.
You should also take a look at ANNOTATE.  It's a lot heavier than using 
flags, but gives you a lot more flexibility (when you have a server that 
supports ANNOTATE, of course).

--lyndon