RFC 5464 IMAP METADATA Extension Errata

[Greg Banks]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 09:36 AM, Greg Banks wrote:
> G'day,
> 
> On 30/07/2012, at 7:20, kael <ka-el at laposte.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 07/26/2012 07:28 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >> https://bugzilla.cyrusimap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3723
> > 
> > 
> > Implementing unsolicited METADATA responses at the same time would be 
> > awesome, though.
> [...]
> 
> But if there's a good use case for it, we could implement such a thing.

I should mention also that Bron has been talking for some time now about
storing modseqs on per-message annotations as a way to make replication
more efficient.  I think this is an excellent idea and is easy enough to
do, because we have a good modseq counter with sensible semantics for
the mailbox and could store it in the db in a semi backwards compatible
manner, and the CONDSTORE rfc allows for servers to keep separate
modseqs on any kind of per-message data.  Once we do that, it would be
relatively easy to emit unsolicited ANNOTATION responses.

It might be feasible to do similar things for per-mailbox annotations. 
But per-server annotations are...less obvious.

-- 
Greg.