Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG

"Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17A112040C for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=YchYBsDG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=B5/EEcLZ
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id holFOeg6RI5e for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48DD9120414 for <extra@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A1422082 for <extra@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:44:57 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=mVSfG5I zxMp3iNgKTA5R6f0Hb7aU6Umk8FshuNu/8/8=; b=YchYBsDG6XOQdeHR+3Rrjlx 6chRATxoF9jW5nw9osQimb6L3NXRwDiGNLDXTy/as+B/V1K5osxYWcG84xZnw9yc hQ1wU+zlctCkHoavwX7ubWjfnnJID8G18xnFHyocCBxnXS/xjHT6QAtUBXqiifu8 ygMhPaKiiDsziNX/owaxRTopsjsG8oRhgHV76+Z9Xk/Z8rwTS+HhhxRczvaHoQk5 vFo662rnYYT64LbbIdP3iyay3KXTBDyvJUuQOHK8D4zIwpzBAuKoZyMXfExupqsp kIEYrR3zZiao6ia+RaEpxyH4Iu68QPj53spwg3ADlyLQq7VL1AmnidY5h7UvRjw= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=mVSfG5 IzxMp3iNgKTA5R6f0Hb7aU6Umk8FshuNu/8/8=; b=B5/EEcLZ8+yewcLFI96TdL E0PjZK4jSVP3Dl28pcwZ/oCP1vL6F+BklXBc/RgAOKf91T8pPpjJ8N92xXCC4dDs cdKZhCzu5CYhEMPQvmHSBs1rIuG9BQ6cumRcV2f+9kmzyuyUNcKR7bAlocWDDOjS KezjMHtanmDB6qRNkTakNHjmgFg0z9ortDiJv08PK1LqTGDiXpq1dCiHqhfJzNR8 wtktPXJ0GeFFCjqi0WvRI8yJ195Se/b05zZScydUTbpnee8dfQmpuADzvtAHRDE6 hME2PveRkvvPD9S/mnFiVnC3K6EyPxg44wr1qdUnJBlZGoaWIDnWdctSVLPq8biw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:qGeeXDGeGE1RUm-IvwT1pqS0iXvPQHW9Ay0BnRzFYDokUC2ZDYJBYQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrkeejgdeltdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtre erreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhhonhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhgsehf rghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrh honhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:qGeeXIm7KxjMoH45ecLuUEK-XCztCyZ2tHAgFyAqU2eg306-vFS1WQ> <xmx:qGeeXC9S0sytwOWAvwzziaYcIwYNC_6lhI95n-cDOj9PyOeokScOlw> <xmx:qGeeXGB8kAWjKJpJuAHZt7LPpdfMSQIAfX8dlLBoWDwmrLL8WwSoKA> <xmx:qWeeXBMNXFJ01zc63AHx-lkUX4-xh_YmRr5H_m3gAyGqAxqTw2-QtA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id D26D92057A; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-329-gf4aae99-fmstable-20190329v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Me-Personality: 56629417
Message-Id: <f82d658e-7590-42a4-b38e-b38bff2541f3@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <17b8d4e0-0ce5-4768-891c-5a7c77f19289@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <49b87029-7cc2-4324-9d97-f7fa2b8762ce@www.fastmail.com> <25ed8a44-6fce-4778-d9cd-d732b7cb91f6@linuxmagic.com> <533a9f07-80c6-4cbc-b7af-fe10ce62580c@www.fastmail.com> <17b8d4e0-0ce5-4768-891c-5a7c77f19289@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:44:53 -0400
From: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=b3d6d596df6744eda05d774920e39cfe
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/dj4gaFw9NsArxVVD8A6MnwCjfco>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:45:05 -0000

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, at 22:10, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On Thursday 28 March 2019 17:11:24 CET, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > Regarding the IMAP flags, it sounds like you are asking for the 
> > $JunkRecorded flag to be standardised, as a keyword which is 
> > only set on user action?
> 
> Please don't define another small collection of flags.

In this particular case, there's a pretty good piece of prior art for the name in RFC5232, plus multiple mentions online.

The oldest mention in my personal mail archive is:

* OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen NotJunk 
Junk JunkRecorded $NotJunk $Junk $Forwarded \*)]

In an email to the Cyrus IMAPd mailing list in 2006 from somebody at columbia.edu. Of course clients are setting both $Junk and Junk because some systems use one and some use the other! Very annoying.

> If anything, then please a mostly-complete registration of the flags that 
> are currently in use. Like 5530, which was written in three steps: a) 
> surveying b) organising the results to avoid duplications c) defining each 
> item.

That sounds reasonable. I'd be happy to help with a document like that, or find someone else at FastMail who might want their name on an RFC in exchange for doing the work :)

> In this case, getting the flags that are set on gmail and fastmail should 
> be enough, ordered by the number of distinct users who've set each flag, 
> with a cutoff after the first 50-100. Anything that's used enough to be a 
> candidate for interop/standardisation should show up in one of the two 
> lists.

Yep. I'd want to be a very careful to filter for anything obviously personal, but if it's used by more than 100 users who aren't related then it shouldn't be anything private! And they would make good candidates for optimising search on too.

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
 brong@fastmailteam.com