Open rra opened 3 years ago
Comment by iulius on 27 Dec 2008 11:08 UTC According to Russ Allbery in an IETF-NNTP posting:
There are two main reasons why we didn't standardize PAT. The first and most serious is whitespace handling in patterns. Given the way that NNTP command parsing works, how would you search for a pattern containing two spaces? And what do the spaces between patterns really mean?
The second, as you mention below, is the encoding problem, which is very hairy and difficult to deal with.
IMAP has addressed the search problem at some length, and my impression was that it wasn't at all simple to deal with. I'm afraid that doing a good job of it is going to require quite a lot of work.
It would be worthwhile writing up an informational (?) I-D explaining what INN actually does with XPAT without trying to change anything about how it currently works and specifying an extension name of XPAT rather than a standardized one.
Reported by iulius on 27 Dec 2008 10:51 UTC XPAT should probably be documented in an Informational Internet-Draft.
Maybe PAT could be specified. Suggestions:
The legacy syntax is kept:
New metadata :body to specify that PAT will search in bodies. It would be advertised as
PAT BODY
inCAPABILITIES
.Maybe another metadata :text to search in the whole article (headers+body)? It would be advertised as
PAT TEXT
inCAPABILITIES
.Support for existing
:bytes
and:lines
metadata, like what is currently implemented in INN 2.5 (forXPAT
):Available references: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/nntp/drafts/draft-ballou-nntpsrch-03.txt