Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded property
"Chris Newman" <chris.newman@oracle.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 19:25 UTC
Return-Path: <chris.newman@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AFE1205D3 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9CKnZs83H2kx for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B4112932A for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v34JPHYv009588 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:25:18 GMT
Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v34JPHDm020997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:25:17 GMT
Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v34JPGgs025404; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:25:16 GMT
Received: from [10.145.239.160] (/10.145.239.160) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:25:16 -0700
From: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: Benoit Tellier <btellier@linagora.com>, jmap@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:25:14 -0700
Message-ID: <59771DE7-35FB-49E3-BFC9-9EBD1268E88A@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <92769755-62c6-7257-ce3d-7d0b5699735d@isode.com>
References: <148716911729.17277.15371202023742081890.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <b7ec34d3-3aaf-82af-3663-5b0966c83ff0@dcrocker.net> <b5753f7f-92f9-50dd-42f0-ce0de7360e08@linagora.com> <A9EDBE7D-4E3D-45C2-BB97-F74AC9DB9486@oracle.com> <9eb1fd3c-8868-9d24-6c30-46d333b69fef@isode.com> <3c1711a2-46dd-db1c-506e-5e1ad89ce56d@linagora.com> <92769755-62c6-7257-ce3d-7d0b5699735d@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/y4Og5PxCvEbuEsWK-QYRconWMiM>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded property
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:25:24 -0000
On 4 Apr 2017, at 7:00, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Benoit, > > On 04/04/2017 11:08, Benoit Tellier wrote: > >> |Hi, >> | >> >> |Thanks for your answers. How do you plan to access such registered >> keyword, if it is not made somehow a message property?| >> > | > It has to be a message properly. For example "keywords" which contains > an array of other IMAP keywords as strings. I have other applications > that need to access to other keywords, some of which are listed on > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-keywords/imap-keywords.xhtml>| As a general principle, I'm opposed to gratuitous changes between IMAP and JMAP (or Submit and JMAP). So a message has to have flags/keywords as a property and $Forwarded is a keyword no different from other keywords in how it is accessed. >> |As a JMAP user I would like this to be very easily accessible from >> the Message object, and also it to be searchable. >> | >> > Agreed. +1. IMAP flags/keywords are easy to access and searchable via IMAP. Same should be true via JMAP. >> |In the case of $Forwarded I think it needs to be consistent with the >> reply feature, for automatically marked as forwarded, and for >> threads.| >> > | > I wouldn't mind having some extra logic for forwarded messages, if the > group can agree on that. I'm supportive of including flag setting logic for $Forwarded, $MDNSent and \Answered in JMAP to the extent JMAP provides forward, MDN and reply functionality. Our JMAP-equivalent IMAP/Submit proxy has flag setting logic for $MDNSent and \Answered. The omission of support for $Forwarded is likely because it was defined later than the other two. - Chris > Best Regards, > Alexey > > | >> >> |Cheers, >> | >> >> |Benoit Tellier| >> >> >> Le 04/04/2017 à 00:43, Alexey Melnikov a écrit : >>> On 03/04/2017 18:10, Chris Newman wrote: >>> >>>> IMAP $Forwarded is a registered keyword and thus a fully supported >>>> part of IMAP: >>>> >>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-keywords/imap-keywords.xhtml#imap-keywords-1 >>>> >>>> There's no need for JMAP to define all these registered keywords; >>>> it only needs to reference the registry. >>> Agreed. And at the Chicago face-to-face meeting I've raised the >>> issue of lack of generic access to IMAP keywords in JMAP. I believe >>> there was room agreement to fix it in a generic way. >>> >>>> >>>> = Chris >>>> >>>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 2:13, Benoit Tellier wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> At Linagora, we tend to consider **forward** information as >>>>> important >>>>> for the email we care about. >>>>> >>>>> Today, it is not part of the RFC-3501 spec, and many IMAP >>>>> implementations handle it with the de-facto standard $Forwarded >>>>> flag. >>>>> >>>>> This implicit standard is a bad thing, and we truly would like the >>>>> JMAP >>>>> mail protocol to do this right. To be right, it should be >>>>> explicit. >>>>> >>>>> We then propose this pull request: >>>>> >>>>> It reproduces the behavior of **answered** feature: >>>>> >>>>> - Adds a **isForwarded** message property >>>>> - Adds a mechanism for automatically marking messages as >>>>> forwarded upon >>>>> sending emails >>>>> - Clarifies interactions between isForwarded and threads >>>>> - Makes isForwarded searchable >>>>> >>>>> Does this proposal make sense to you? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Benoit Tellier >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> Software engineer at Linagora >>>>> PMC on Apache JAMES >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 01/04/2017 à 06:23, Dave Crocker a écrit : >>>>>> G'day, >>>>>> >>>>>> The working group meeting discussion about a static message, >>>>>> dynamic >>>>>> annotation, etc., resonated with a variety of similar discussions >>>>>> I've >>>>>> been around over the years (dating back to the mid-1970.) >>>>>> >>>>>> A simpler version equates the constructs of message and document, >>>>>> as >>>>>> two views of the same thing. (Ie, Document with attributes; >>>>>> Message >>>>>> with a body.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The essence is to consider the nature and relationship of the >>>>>> objects, >>>>>> possibly permitting different semantics for the same set of >>>>>> objects, >>>>>> according to different applications or roles. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is, there can be a variety of constituent objects that are >>>>>> associated and can be viewed according to different semantics (or >>>>>> views)... So a message, a document, a calendar entry, a series >>>>>> of >>>>>> comments, etc. Each object has associated processing rules (eg, >>>>>> static vs. editable vs. executable; constrained choice of values; >>>>>> organization into folders or other schemas...) >>>>>> >>>>>> An environment like this can be powerful and very appealing. The >>>>>> challenge tends to be staying practical: With no effort at all >>>>>> it >>>>>> devolves into an abstract computer science exercise. Some of >>>>>> that is >>>>>> an efficiency issue(*) but I think it's mostly about the human >>>>>> manageability for design and operations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on both the years of commercial use and the public >>>>>> commentary >>>>>> about the performance, I've no doubt the fastmail system does not >>>>>> suffer these downsides. But it's a potential that this >>>>>> re-casting >>>>>> through the IETF could easily suffer. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm posting this note partly because I think it would exciting to >>>>>> produce specs that permit a degree of flexibility that such an >>>>>> approach permits, but also wanted to cite the dangers. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the moment, I'm guessing there needs to be a small number of >>>>>> basic >>>>>> object types and a small number of 'relationship' types that >>>>>> define >>>>>> the association between objects. These could then be combined >>>>>> into >>>>>> higher-order, formal organizations/semantics the define an >>>>>> application >>>>>> semantic (mail, calendar, whatever.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> d/ >>>>>> >>>>>> (*) A system I did in 1977 has a little bit of this and the >>>>>> extremely >>>>>> pure design produced impressively horrible performance. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Jmap mailing list >>>>> Jmap@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Jmap mailing list >>>> Jmap@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Jmap mailing list > Jmap@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jhaveri
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Adrien de Croy
- [Jmap] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-i… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jhaveri
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- [Jmap] message vs. annotation Dave Crocker
- [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded property Benoit Tellier
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Benoit Tellier
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Benoit Tellier
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Benoit Tellier
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] message vs. annotation Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] message vs. annotation Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Benoit Tellier
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded proper… Alexey Melnikov