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 <Sebastian@sspaeth.de>wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> 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
>