IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 18 July 2024 17:13 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 31807C15152D for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 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_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 jNku37CkEU7f for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:13:03 -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 8A8BFC151078 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1721322778; bh=zdRvy/KffSnHkUTwUjxNUKg6Yeip1B1FjIH9r0GvkTs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=BLhpWMGuIWf4uNGHYVD6U3tgEEL3BJxv4+wHEs1daTtURso8zaKC1/+2pNpgDQSWq /yagL8hLQEaZ07qxGXyIKMo66Yobo36XZO8JsZ8zcgPoYrKCA4E29GZGk0vXJdr7c0 FuI5v8d9gK6hVjMp04i1ygNF/284Cxx8xetuOwNJ2vqhIca24Qd3J8uZ5fQFO
Original-Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078
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 00000000005DC090.0000000066994D19.000016C2; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:12:57 +0200
Message-ID: <a9d70e90-81d4-460f-af27-c33218151797@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:12:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <5cb8ef6f-2b29-4a98-aa87-caad69a8362d@karlewald.de> <20240717174311.36CF98FF23D0@ary.qy> <da2d57ec-6925-4fe3-9991-138fb617bade@dcrocker.net> <1a5558ee-0e9d-d31d-37dc-1c19bea7f3e9@taugh.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <1a5558ee-0e9d-d31d-37dc-1c19bea7f3e9@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID-Hash: LWAHBSOW2EHCPC5X4W2AU6IO7IT6ZRYU
X-Message-ID-Hash: LWAHBSOW2EHCPC5X4W2AU6IO7IT6ZRYU
X-MailFrom: vesely@tana.it
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf-822.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format [RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/bJFHZAUA6NduH9xRWIAvylJ9oiI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-822-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed 17/Jul/2024 21:58:33 +0200 John R Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>> On 7/17/2024 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Beyond bikeshedding about the name (I like Reaction-Enabled) this is
>>> an obvious good idea. We should have thought of it before we published
>>> 9078.
>>
>> This is a special case of generally indicating the replies will not be 
>> accepted.  Or maybe just that they are not desired.
> 
> It's more subtle than that.  If you have a UA that understands reactions, it 
> can display them in a way that makes sense, but if you don't, as he said, 
> they're ugly and annoying.  This is a hint to the recipient's system whether to 
> enable the reaction menu or just regular replies.


What if the MUA I regularly use can handle reactions, but I happen to send a 
message from another MUA, which doesn't?  Or the other way around.

Karl mentioned involvement of rMDA.  Perhaps reaction-aware IMAP servers could 
host a reaction subfolder for each folder, or something to sort a similar 
effect; that is, reaction-aware MUAs can see that while the other ones don't.

Having reactions served like IMAP flags would be very convenient for MUAs.


jm2c
Ale
--

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status