IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 10 April 2024 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 38DA3C14F5F1 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 fo5T_F8vvRgz for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C33A3C14F5E0 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a51ddc783e3so431561566b.0 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712769242; x=1713374042; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+dWisAAZTVPZCiuV+FM7eEGdaFArHbHAlMNNv3c/yXU=; b=Aw/DPys4AwWOGVCp/9bvAgt0XKukrE6OPhjL8dN2v5qzTdjDWm3/21vIVKINRWxkLy 8Howdvjel+o3B3mJYE76aQ/3vYdKWmAaNySLDSO6PTXugX3D9f86bXpbkuPxXWEPBkcB FBK420LSTHguKDnD3gdpxZnUtVAuGalQH4cZufFlWynMo1wV+9Si8MfsyizKL6mClKg7 z45r5icPTaq8T0yQm2BYaek0vTBmsJbC2Sgh1iwxiBt1Y5j9LMgeK4J0DbtHf+sSe8CC vAkI1gEubLfjRsdatTI6zk4TCoQlJ3QxiCpSRFu5RcpFekWwrVxnIonLDBxejSI5z592 tt+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712769242; x=1713374042; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+dWisAAZTVPZCiuV+FM7eEGdaFArHbHAlMNNv3c/yXU=; b=otoFHGZ+Y4wYufOHZHOL7iksyV9GXGCOioGcWIte1xkqIm8IOsxTdyyOy76qqvCTOo Qrvvr+hxtZAzmv04j54qvypFRJkqJ1HYNHM0QT/8AeOMhUgepjYkeqdC8UyalmqcPw1j FIvrlehJOIToTKftFXbuQGLBcqBjDqNXtzqun5dNVHwMAAXekWJrCFD+gvAOm7w4hFx9 s2lBCnSDwf0wLwDeqO4yP0Z1W8noIFNtwo36J0Y/IdkJFgzUjAxA99rtDODFg3h8XHFd dTLy/+5YjV79XLOMihmDjGYQaR0Ye2LR1Yt8j2eYT5dY+SEbzxeUIcndgszG07Oxt6tL /3OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyt9rUMgycVcLC7koX23EyjIPBez4oCoWE6Idk7SlfQ6lFa8yc/ tG8pxTcxRhaK3wfcbeHBhbxO846O42LoYV9I//VOSxNbqvAsWKQUlWbKssaINaxjHKA/q6VwLE0 kxJPrIbNPytRRl9uJGcQh39XJtVA5Y88mvE5VzQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG4VKBpbCoOvCyJRa1fHxXtnoyCWWPY0NPE+XQzslNohxMKXpRXpbmmr7ko1pv8xIVj9HHdndrBPbo1PjVcQQs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b853:b0:a51:f7de:1295 with SMTP id ga19-20020a170906b85300b00a51f7de1295mr1892085ejb.16.1712769242224; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:13:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SxeXVvysoQ2ymOtkD0aV4YbcekOcXE2617s4Bmr0GBeNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-822@ietf.org, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000043e6940615c12af2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/w9iGomct4eQ-h5Np5jzGqajOl9c>
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:14:05 -0000

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.

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.

Speaking as someone with several years of experience in Lucky Charms
engineering :)

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email