IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MORG] Expiration impending: draft-ietf-morg-inthread

Jan Kundrát <jkt@flaska.net> Thu, 06 January 2011 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jkt@flaska.net>
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 5C1193A6F39 for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 rdcZNTJjPM1R for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postak-1.fzu.cz (pc175e.fzu.cz [147.231.127.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA53A6A94 for <morg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc175e.fzu.cz (postak0.fzu.cz [10.128.1.10]) by postak-1.fzu.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p06Kp6v3001317 for <morg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:51:06 +0100
Received: from [192.168.3.63] (246-24.11.24.78.awnet.cz [78.24.11.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by pc175e.fzu.cz (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p06KpGRS022468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <morg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:51:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4D262B4E.9030206@flaska.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:51:26 +0100
From: Jan Kundrát <jkt@flaska.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: morg@ietf.org
References: <20101227124203.434.71384.idtracker@localhost> <PZaU88AaWtLtew0R5JMyeQ.md5@[192.168.1.104]> <4D2623C6.6050308@flaska.net> <4D2623E6.2090201@isode.com> <4D262785.5070003@flaska.net> <alpine.OSX.2.00.1101061237170.796@hsinghsing.panda.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1101061237170.796@hsinghsing.panda.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD71F564919512CE74D5AB7DA"
Subject: Re: [MORG] Expiration impending: draft-ietf-morg-inthread
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, 06 Jan 2011 20:49:11 -0000

On 01/06/11 21:39, Mark Crispin wrote:
> Considering that THREAD=REFERENCES and THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT are the only
> forms of threading that many servers will ever implement, this seems to be
> a rather unfortunate choice.

I'm aware of the fact that THREAD=REFS is still in very early stages of
adoption. However, the other threading methods would require quite heavy
postprocessing on the client side in order to be usable, at least
according to my metric -- I prefer not to have unrelated messages with
the same subject merged into one thread. An extra walk on all envelopes
to sort threads by date of recent arrivals is not worth it in my book,
either.

So the situation right now is either server-side threading by
THREAD=REFS, or no threading at all. If/when I implement threading which
doesn't require this extension, it will likely work by requesting
References/In-Reply-To headers and working on them.

Best regards,
Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email