Re: [Q]

On Tue, 27 November 07:24 Emmanuel wrote:
> On 2001.11.26 16:14 Brian Stafford wrote:

>> If so, I would not reccommend using this for a filter, since it may be 
>> omitted or in some arbitrary format determined by the sending MUA.  Only 
>> the mailbox part of the address can be compared reliably - and even then 
>> the usual care is needed wrt case sensitivity on the left and right of the 
>> @.
> For now all search is case insensitive, but I think we could have a way to 
> change that.

The domain must always be a case insensitive match.  The left side is harder 
to make a judgement.  Strictly speaking it is case sensitive, but many systems 
consider case to be folded so case-insensitive is likely to be right most 

>> OTOH, if the mailbox address is used as an index into the local address 
>> book to find the string to compare for the filter rules, that could be made 
>> reliable since the user is in control of their address book.
> Hmm in fact that's exactly what I want : a way to give the user a way to 
> filter upon things he knows, I mean that in general you don't remember the 
> e-mail address of someone but you remember his name/nickname.


> But the problem is : how can I distinct between a "normal" address and one 
> that is in one of the address books

I'm not clear what you mean here.

> (moreover I want to be able to do that as fast as possible)?

I would guess that some kind of hashed lookup is needed.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]