IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] RFC 9078 Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 11 April 2024 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64475C14E513 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id djQohazjJduW for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21819C14F5E7 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 04:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1712836630; bh=uxa3yF897h4BNnYbOGx9Oi4GTNFEd3PVGogXB4jcJ/s=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=A01nStKEW/VgrT4CsyqHSprF8YyLQNnCVznXPjBLoOfuhfOESSjs7UnVgXLPNeMZT 9d9F9S2eSrDAmg3waw2Af/GfMTatcz1Yf7y3Mz6EgaXpiZUUqXTtXi89rP1GZ0mPlo pWHmPQyYakzMlQZzzhmcDfL7ne4p2nJkrP5J5PgNadIT92iA2R6rk5IPxceyG
Original-Subject: Re: [ietf-822] RFC 9078 Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC05A.000000006617D016.00002834; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:57:10 +0200
Message-ID: <bb4e790d-4d39-4499-a99c-f51bd938c3f4@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:57:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <CAChr6SxeXVvysoQ2ymOtkD0aV4YbcekOcXE2617s4Bmr0GBeNA@mail.gmail.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxeXVvysoQ2ymOtkD0aV4YbcekOcXE2617s4Bmr0GBeNA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/TIvbcifts9PcEc6s5vxO4UUyKE8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] RFC 9078 Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:57:27 -0000

On Wed 10/Apr/2024 19:13:50 +0200 Rob Sayre wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
>> Rob, would you use the oldish star or invent a new tag, perhaps a 
>> different tag for each different reaction? >
> That IMAP feature seems more like a "note to self" than a reaction, but I 
> don't know very much about IMAP.


Yes, IMAP lets you just tag a message as, say, $reacted-star.  Then you must 
send a message to the original author, with the content as described in RFC 
9078, {U+2B50} in case of ⭐.

The receiving server will presumably display the star near to the original 
message, that is in the Sent folder.  It may do so using IMAP keywords, but it 
should also count the number of reactions received, by whom, etcetera, perhaps 
storing those messages in a Reactions folder.  This is the challenging part.


> The reason I say ⭐ and ♥️ need to be in the base emoji set is because these
> are often the only option. Think of Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon. I think
> the general approach in the draft is good.


Although RFC 9078 exemplifies a set of base-emojis, an emoji-sequence is not 
limited by that.  You can use any *emoji sequence* defined in the referenced 
document[*].


Best
Ale
-- 

[*] https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#def_emoji_sequence

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email