From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F62B431FB6 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=0.726, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I0IXJAjZXorQ for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eu1sys200aog101.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog101.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.111]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69F4D431FD0 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob101.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKThSp6F0TCpxJaVM31LcBYKS4ZEWTLJ2J@postini.com; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:31:05 UTC Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so115775qwc.41 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.126.12 with SMTP id a12mr6553123qas.152.1309977063468; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.47.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87wrg3pyra.fsf@SSpaeth.de> References: <87wrg5905c.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87wrg3pyra.fsf@SSpaeth.de> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:31:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: notmuch Digest, Vol 20, Issue 57 From: Sander Boer To: Sebastian Spaeth Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:31:07 -0000 --0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Sebastian, If IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ? I mean, having a converging point for all tags, is that not like the holy grail in this field ? Obviously, there must be a caveat, you mentioned client-support, which is inconvenient, but of no long term consequence. Do you know what the status is of *server* support ? Because imo this *is* a big deal, without real standardized server support an IMAP store for tags is off the table. best, Sander On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > > First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from > > Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of > > availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap). > > Even risking to become a bit thread-offtopic: IMAP itself supports tags > just fine and should be able to read/set/search all tags just fine (even > any user defined). My feeling is more that this is a lack of tag-using > IMAP clients to expose existing tag functionality. Thunderbird is doing > fine exposing up to 4 user-defined tags that are synced to the server, > but it's still not doing all it can. > > I still believe that it would be possible to eg. sync all our notmuch > tags to the IMAP server, which would help enormously with syncing across > machines. I still have the long-term goal of offlineimap being able to sync > notmuch tags. (very long term, though) > > As for Gmail and folders, I think it is an ugly kludge leading to all > kinds of awkward behavior (at least when treating Gmail as an IMAP > server). On the other hand it exposes nice tag behavior to clients that > wouldn't support it. > > Sebastian > --0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Sebastian,

If= IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ?
I mean, having a convergin= g point for all tags, is that not like the holy grail in this field ?

Obviously, there must be a caveat, you mentioned client-support, which = is inconvenient, but of no long term consequence.
Do you know what the s= tatus is of *server* support ? Because imo this *is* a big deal, without re= al standardized server support an IMAP store for tags is off the table.

best,
Sander


On Thu, = Jun 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@sspaeth.de> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22= :23 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cwort= h.org> wrote:
> First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes f= rom
> Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack o= f
> availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).

Even risking to become a bit thread-offtopic: IMAP itself supports ta= gs
just fine and should be able to read/set/search all tags just fine (even any user defined). My feeling is more that this is a lack of tag-using
IMAP clients to expose existing tag functionality. Thunderbird is doing
fine exposing up to 4 user-defined tags that are synced to the server,
but it's still not doing all it can.

I still believe that it would be possible to eg. sync all our notmuch
tags to the IMAP server, which would help enormously with syncing across machines. I still have the long-term goal of offlineimap being able to sync=
notmuch tags. (very long term, though)

As for Gmail and folders, I think it is an ugly kludge leading to all
kinds of awkward behavior (at least when treating Gmail as an IMAP
server). On the other hand it exposes nice tag behavior to clients that
wouldn't support it.

Sebastian

--0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe--