Re: [MORG] THREAD= search return option in draft-ietf-morg-inthread-01.txt

Dan Keen <morg@dankeen.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <morg@dankeen.com>
X-Original-To: morg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: morg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DD33A6B24 for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id znZkY3xQaZ0a for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.dankeen.com (mail.dankeen.com [67.207.134.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6D33A6B0F for <morg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (c-71-202-134-255.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.134.255]) by mail.dankeen.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86297B0EA3; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Dan Keen <morg@dankeen.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C5AB4C3.80007@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:12:41 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8349DB2C-6D37-4B02-B9F6-9DA1834A3058@dankeen.com>
References: <4C50244C.8010401@isode.com> <4C57ECFA.3040504@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4C58406A.7030205@isode.com> <4C5958FA.2010403@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <1281012526.6211.333.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com> <4C5AB4C3.80007@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>, morg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MORG] THREAD= search return option in draft-ietf-morg-inthread-01.txt
X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Organization <morg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/morg>
List-Post: <mailto:morg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:12:21 -0000

On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> On 08/05/2010 02:48 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> So do you want it to always use THREAD=REFS or whatever the server wants
>> to use?
> 
> Either would be fine with me. I have a preference, but I'd be happy with either.

Devil's advocate here, but this prevents the client from being smarter.

Let's say we have a thread where the client knows some of the messages in the thread are malformed (don't have proper references or in-reply-to), but it doesn't have all the messages in the thread downloaded.

WIthout being able to specify the threading algorithm in the search, we can't say "Hey, on this one, use Subject-based threading because we know it's malformed".

Yes, the client can try to do it's own subject-based threading implementation with multiple searches to the server, but this could be an improvement.

I'd agree it's not necessary, but I want to make sure we know there is a valid use case for it.

D