From tss@iki.fi Thu Feb 5 09:23:47 2009 Return-Path: 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 72D733A6B14 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:23:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.025 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.574, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 HWbfgJC5yEYj for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607DF3A6817 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.192.51] (unknown [74.205.24.229]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939F0164729F; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:23:21 +0200 (EET) From: Timo Sirainen To: dkarp@zimbra.com Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kbkwZuUYoNXNQ/fDZQxH" Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:23:19 -0500 Message-Id: <1233854599.28283.389.camel@timo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:23:47 -0000 --=-kbkwZuUYoNXNQ/fDZQxH Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Shouldn't it also define DISPLAYTO? I'd think that's also important, especially in "Drafts" and "Sent messages" mailboxes. Should RFC2822 references be RFC5322 instead? --=-kbkwZuUYoNXNQ/fDZQxH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmLIIcACgkQyUhSUUBViskCVQCggg/jIa2viQFRVa3bMie3ituf 0IsAn12NgDoD56++QqZQfpNgRSTm5fjP =sG68 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kbkwZuUYoNXNQ/fDZQxH-- From dkarp@zimbra.com Thu Feb 5 09:47:52 2009 Return-Path: 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 08FE928C1A6 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 x8h6k1RyjCHF for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta03.zimbra.com (mta03.zimbra.com [66.163.172.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EBE3A67F4 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.zimbra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0994C780B6; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.zimbra.com Received: from mta03.zimbra.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.zimbra.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PyAO6Tw4lQEA; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from dogfood.zimbra.com (dogfood.zimbra.com [207.126.229.140]) by mta03.zimbra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CEC780AD; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:47:30 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Karp To: Timo Sirainen Message-ID: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> In-Reply-To: <1359439884.199471233855371255.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.13_GA_2777.RHEL4_64 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/5.0.13_GA_2777.RHEL4_64) Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:47:52 -0000 > Shouldn't it also define DISPLAYTO? I'd think that's also important, > especially in "Drafts" and "Sent messages" mailboxes. I've been wrestling with this, and the problem I have is that the "To" header is multivalued, but the order of those addressees has no meaning. If "To: Alexey, Timo" sorts different from "To: Timo, Alexey", you may have a problem. And no matter how you slice it, "To: Alexey, Timo" is probably not going to sort with "To: Timo", which is a bummer if I'm trying to find messages sent to Timo. So I'm planning on punting on DISPLAYTO unless we can do better than "kinda useful sometimes". Ideas? > Should RFC2822 references be RFC5322 instead? Absolutely. Will fix in the next version. From tss@iki.fi Thu Feb 5 09:57:24 2009 Return-Path: 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 011B63A6997 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:57:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.510, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Fe43gO3z5KjK for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB463A6986 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.192.51] (unknown [74.205.24.229]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C38416472A3; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:57:02 +0200 (EET) From: Timo Sirainen To: Dan Karp In-Reply-To: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ITVaSWjNzCH1cp/ZuP+2" Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:57:00 -0500 Message-Id: <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:57:24 -0000 --=-ITVaSWjNzCH1cp/ZuP+2 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 09:47 -0800, Dan Karp wrote: > > Shouldn't it also define DISPLAYTO? I'd think that's also important, > > especially in "Drafts" and "Sent messages" mailboxes. >=20 > I've been wrestling with this, and the problem I have is that the "To" > header is multivalued, but the order of those addressees has no meaning. > If "To: Alexey, Timo" sorts different from "To: Timo, Alexey", you may > have a problem. And no matter how you slice it, "To: Alexey, Timo" is > probably not going to sort with "To: Timo", which is a bummer if I'm > trying to find messages sent to Timo. >=20 > So I'm planning on punting on DISPLAYTO unless we can do better than > "kinda useful sometimes". Ideas? Is this really a problem? In my "Sent Messages" mailbox only 25 of 17457 messages have multiple recipients. I think most other people also put only one recipient to To: field and the rest to Cc. That's also how clients usually do the replying. --=-ITVaSWjNzCH1cp/ZuP+2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmLKGwACgkQyUhSUUBVismMkACfdUg1apiXytezK4/i/A6oZqj2 z90AnieJxmGmehIryPcN3BfDB1G01X/K =hXle -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ITVaSWjNzCH1cp/ZuP+2-- From dkarp@zimbra.com Thu Feb 5 10:59:02 2009 Return-Path: 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 D525228C13D for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:59:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 WZxQxAA+lgpq for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta03.zimbra.com (mta03.zimbra.com [66.163.172.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C573E3A6827 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:57:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.zimbra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0C2780B6; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.zimbra.com Received: from mta03.zimbra.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.zimbra.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gwRJ+7Jpglp7; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from dogfood.zimbra.com (dogfood.zimbra.com [207.126.229.140]) by mta03.zimbra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D097A780AD; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:49 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Karp To: Timo Sirainen Message-ID: <313468461.205691233858709929.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> In-Reply-To: <1471139458.205501233858567688.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.13_GA_2777.RHEL4_64 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/5.0.13_GA_2777.RHEL4_64) Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:59:02 -0000 > > > Shouldn't it also define DISPLAYTO? I'd think that's also important, > > > especially in "Drafts" and "Sent messages" mailboxes. > > > > I've been wrestling with this, and the problem I have is that the "To" > > header is multivalued, but the order of those addressees has no meaning. > > If "To: Alexey, Timo" sorts different from "To: Timo, Alexey", you may > > have a problem. And no matter how you slice it, "To: Alexey, Timo" is > > probably not going to sort with "To: Timo", which is a bummer if I'm > > trying to find messages sent to Timo. > > Is this really a problem? In my "Sent Messages" mailbox only 25 of 17457 > messages have multiple recipients. I think most other people also put > only one recipient to To: field and the rest to Cc. That's also how > clients usually do the replying. Yes, replies go to the replied-to message's sender with all other visible recipients relegated to CC. But when sending non-reply mail out to multiple recipients, everyone usually ends up on the To line. Let me check my personal email for some anecdotal evidence... OK, my 15 most recent messages break down as follows: 3 messages sent to a single recipient 5 messages sent with multiple "To" addressees (some with additional CCs) 7 replies (MUA moves other recipients to CC line, if any) My work email is more along the lines you've mentioned: 1 message sent to a single recipient 1 messages sent with multiple "To" addressees (some with additional CCs) 1 message sent to a single "To" with additional CCs 12 replies (MUA moves other recipients to CC line, if any) From tss@iki.fi Thu Feb 5 11:10:34 2009 Return-Path: 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 AE5A13A6A1A for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.14 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 y-HA7a8dw6sL for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACBD3A6A0E for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:10:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.192.51] (unknown [74.205.24.229]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D892916472BB; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:10:31 +0200 (EET) From: Timo Sirainen To: Dan Karp In-Reply-To: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VxXJC3u12v5W86kEx4xE" Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:10:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1233861030.28283.424.camel@timo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:10:34 -0000 --=-VxXJC3u12v5W86kEx4xE Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 09:47 -0800, Dan Karp wrote: > And no matter how you slice it, "To: Alexey, Timo" is > probably not going to sort with "To: Timo", which is a bummer if I'm > trying to find messages sent to Timo. Well, it would be possible to duplicate the seq/uid in the reply for each recipient.. But I don't know if that's a good idea. --=-VxXJC3u12v5W86kEx4xE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmLOaYACgkQyUhSUUBViskXSgCgjEDAdHEXywBzODgzVtvEDPek MnYAn1c7SoctycSgitFIKPRcrVOFHgRA =kpWS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VxXJC3u12v5W86kEx4xE-- From arnt@oryx.com Fri Feb 6 02:10:25 2009 Return-Path: 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 2E78A3A6923 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:10:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 ldgQSY3pCjXg for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:10:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0302A3A68C1 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:10:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBBD4AC50; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:10:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1233915021-9030-1/6/127 (2 recipients); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:10:21 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:11:13 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: morg@ietf.org References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1233861030.28283.424.camel@timo-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1233861030.28283.424.camel@timo-desktop> Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:10:25 -0000 Timo Sirainen writes: > Well, it would be possible to duplicate the seq/uid in the reply for > each recipient.. But I don't know if that's a good idea. I think not at all a good idea. Arnt From tss@iki.fi Fri Feb 6 09:59:04 2009 Return-Path: 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 3874C3A689A for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:59:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 t1-w4nkl-oBI for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D143A672F for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:59:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.192.51] (unknown [74.205.24.229]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6518316472CC; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:59:03 +0200 (EET) From: Timo Sirainen To: Dan Karp In-Reply-To: <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-mTsiNUsBVU/7DBlMqeXg" Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:59:01 -0500 Message-Id: <1233943141.28283.474.camel@timo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:59:04 -0000 --=-mTsiNUsBVU/7DBlMqeXg Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 12:57 -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > I've been wrestling with this, and the problem I have is that the "To" > > header is multivalued, but the order of those addressees has no meaning= . > > If "To: Alexey, Timo" sorts different from "To: Timo, Alexey", you may > > have a problem. And no matter how you slice it, "To: Alexey, Timo" is > > probably not going to sort with "To: Timo", which is a bummer if I'm > > trying to find messages sent to Timo. > >=20 > > So I'm planning on punting on DISPLAYTO unless we can do better than > > "kinda useful sometimes". Ideas? >=20 > Is this really a problem? In my "Sent Messages" mailbox only 25 of 17457 > messages have multiple recipients. I think most other people also put > only one recipient to To: field and the rest to Cc. That's also how > clients usually do the replying. I think we want to create extensions that help clients do what they want? Most clients allow sorting by To:, and I'd think that most (all?) of them simply do the To: sorting by the first address. I can verify that this happens with Evolution and Thunderbird. --=-mTsiNUsBVU/7DBlMqeXg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmMemUACgkQyUhSUUBVisnpRgCfcipF9owWEl6MDotoq9D/rUEF Da4AoJ1GQdgGBEkuQznHok228IZaw6nc =b6AC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-mTsiNUsBVU/7DBlMqeXg-- From leiba@watson.ibm.com Fri Feb 6 10:13:24 2009 Return-Path: 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 F19083A689A for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:13:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] 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 JpbteMVu0Y4S for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286F528C169 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n16IBBNo010973 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:11:11 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n16IDO6I207354 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:13:24 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n16IDOZg002956 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:13:24 -0700 Received: from poplar (poplar.watson.ibm.com [9.2.24.140]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n16IDNch002912; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:13:23 -0700 Received: from 9.12.238.248:52413 ([9.12.238.248]) by poplar.watson.ibm.com (IMF.2005.07.16.1050.haw) with SMTP ID IMFd1233944013.3288; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:13:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:13:18 -0500 From: Barry Leiba To: Timo Sirainen , Dan Karp Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1233943141.28283.474.camel@timo-desktop> References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> <1233943141.28283.474.camel@timo-desktop> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:13:24 -0000 >> Is this really a problem? In my "Sent Messages" mailbox only 25 of 17457 >> messages have multiple recipients. I think most other people also put >> only one recipient to To: field and the rest to Cc. That's also how >> clients usually do the replying. This is *very* much *not* true of my mailbox and my client. Please, let's not make these kinds of assumptions as we develop protocols. > I think we want to create extensions that help clients do what they > want? Most clients allow sorting by To:, and I'd think that most (all?) > of them simply do the To: sorting by the first address. I can verify > that this happens with Evolution and Thunderbird. Yes, all clients I'm aware of treat most fields as unfolded strings for the purpose of sorting. Which basically means that the first "to" wins (though most will sort multiple "to" addresses after all single ones, for this reason). Barry From arnt@oryx.com Fri Feb 6 13:16:03 2009 Return-Path: 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 B483C3A6B99 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:16:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 BshxSyVzWfmM for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D2C3A6830 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:16:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35A44AC68; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:15:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1233954958-9030-1/6/133 (5 recipients); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:15:58 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:16:51 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Barry Leiba References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> <1233943141.28283.474.camel@timo-desktop> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Timo Sirainen , morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:16:03 -0000 Barry Leiba writes: > This is *very* much *not* true of my mailbox and my client. Please, > let's not make these kinds of assumptions as we develop protocols. We don't really have a better option. RFCs 822-5322 say To can contain multiple addresses. RFC 5256 says the SORT command sorts messages. Knuth vol 2 and surely a thousand other tomes say one item ends in exactly one point in the sort order. 5256 several times (e.g. the FROM key) helps by saying that when there's more than one potential sort key, one is chosen, thus preserving cardinality with the message. There is is: A conflict. Now we have to live with it. We can pick one TO address and sort on that, or just use 5256's TO key. >> I think we want to create extensions that help clients do what they >> want? Most clients allow sorting by To:, and I'd think that most >> (all?) of them simply do the To: sorting by the first address. I can >> verify that this happens with Evolution and Thunderbird. Good enough for me, since I've never heard any relevant user complaints. Arnt From leiba@watson.ibm.com Fri Feb 6 13:23:33 2009 Return-Path: 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 ED2B93A6C0A for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:23:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.982, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 zycejVUFwznt for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEB13A6B99 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n16LFxq9014338 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:16:00 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n16LNYvG196842 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:23:34 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n16LNYOw025756 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:23:34 -0500 Received: from poplar (poplar.watson.ibm.com [9.2.24.140]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n16LNYO0025747 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:23:34 -0500 Received: from Uranus-009002042072.watson.ibm.com ([9.2.42.72]) by poplar.watson.ibm.com (IMF.2005.07.16.1050.haw) with SMTP ID IMFd1233955424.3356; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:23:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:23:33 -0500 From: Barry Leiba To: morg@ietf.org Message-ID: <38688D39B0236C065DB8D339@Uranus-009002042072.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: <2008935161.200261233856050600.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com> <1233856620.28283.403.camel@timo-desktop> <1233943141.28283.474.camel@timo-desktop> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [MORG] sortdisplay X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:23:34 -0000 >> This is *very* much *not* true of my mailbox and my client. Please, >> let's not make these kinds of assumptions as we develop protocols. > > We don't really have a better option. The rest of your explanation isn't needed; you misunderstand me. We obviously have to pick a way to sort on "to" that makes sense. That mechanism has to take into account whether there's one or multiple "to" addresses. My point isn't that what we're settling on it wrong. It's that as we design these protocol, we should not make assumptions about how people use email, and, in particular, how people address their email. Carry on.... Barry From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Tue Feb 10 05:26:17 2009 Return-Path: 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 A0C603A6B61; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:26:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.243 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=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 FMLEZ4tRuvqW; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE4C3A6BEB; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.6] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:26:18 +0000 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4991806A.7070701@isode.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:26:02 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lemonade WG , IMAP Extensions WG , morg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070802010302000103010305" Subject: [MORG] [Fwd: RFC 5464 on The IMAP METADATA Extension] X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:26:17 -0000 --------------070802010302000103010305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------070802010302000103010305 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="RFC 5464 on The IMAP METADATA Extension" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC 5464 on The IMAP METADATA Extension" Return-Path: Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by canine (Isode M-Box/14.3v2) with LMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:22:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by rufus.isode.com (smtp external) via TCP with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:22:51 +0000 X-SPF-Result: PASS rufus.isode.com: domain of ietf.org designates 64.170.98.32 as permitted sender Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B7E28C28F; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF3928C28F for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -16.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] 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 rEUixMSwIuLu for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551F328C24E for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 3590E214663; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:51 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5464 on The IMAP METADATA Extension From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20090210001651.3590E214663@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:16:51 -0800 (PST) Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5464 Title: The IMAP METADATA Extension Author: C. Daboo Status: Standards Track Date: February 2009 Mailbox: cyrus@daboo.name Pages: 20 Characters: 39425 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-17.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5464.txt The METADATA extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol permits clients and servers to maintain "annotations" or "metadata" on IMAP servers. It is possible to have annotations on a per-mailbox basis or on the server as a whole. For example, this would allow comments about the purpose of a particular mailbox to be "attached" to that mailbox, or a "message of the day" containing server status information to be made available to anyone logging in to the server. [STANDARDS TRACK] This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce --------------070802010302000103010305-- From tss@iki.fi Fri Feb 13 14:51:38 2009 Return-Path: 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 6C21D3A6C97 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:51:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 uWyZmuwnZI20 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012C73A6BA9 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:50:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.4.192.51] (unknown [74.205.24.229]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAD11647219 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:50:54 +0200 (EET) From: Timo Sirainen To: morg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7YK/xE+fHQKIw6pZbAmu" Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:50:53 -0500 Message-Id: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Subject: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:51:38 -0000 --=-7YK/xE+fHQKIw6pZbAmu Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello people, Let's see if we can get our first RFC out: This message officially starts the MOrg Working Group Last Call for the following document: The IMAP SEARCH=3DINTHREAD and THREAD=3DREFS Extensions The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on February 13th and will end on February 28th. Please send any comments to the MOrg mailing list or to the document authors. If you chose to do the latter, please CC both Timo Sirainen and Randall Gellens . Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so if you review the document and find it acceptable, please let the mailing list/authors+chairs know as well. Also, in order to simplify tracking of various issues, please clearly mark each issue in the message (ideally in the subject header field, sending 1 issue per email message). Also, I would strongly encourage to provide specific suggestions for solving issues you've raised (or at least show an example of how your issue can be addressed). - Timo, MOrg co-chair --=-7YK/xE+fHQKIw6pZbAmu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmV+U0ACgkQyUhSUUBVisnVNwCgoKlBLLW8pvMSFAVgQQYuhVt0 yUUAoJY+DokSNGOzBQmnPep9BLkTJjJw =exco -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7YK/xE+fHQKIw6pZbAmu-- From tss@iki.fi Sat Feb 14 11:28:14 2009 Return-Path: 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 749253A6911 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:28:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 dkQnlj-mojQH for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5873A67E6 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.15.3] (c-24-127-33-71.hsd1.va.comcast.net [24.127.33.71]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3145D16471E1 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:28:19 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: From: Timo Sirainen To: morg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:28:16 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Subject: [MORG] Address search X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:28:14 -0000 > (Open issue: I think the localpart ought to be considered case > insensitive. All agree?_) I'd hope so. > The following fourteen address fields MUST be supported: From, To, > Cc, Bcc, Reply-To, Return-Path, Sender, Resent-Bcc, Resent-Cc, > Resent-From, Resent-Sender and Resent-To. There's only 12.. Fourteen also mentioned later in document. > All three search keys use either a client-specified list of address > fields, or all supported fields. Is it actually useful to support searching all fields? > The server MUST check address fields in the top-level message, and > MAY also check header fields in subsidiary message/rfc822 objects. > (Open issue: SHOULD also? Or even MUST?) There's currently no support for that anywhere else in IMAP, so I think MAY is as far as it should go, if even that. If searching inside message/rfc822 objects is wanted perhaps a new extension that adds support for searching them with all SEARCH parameters (e.g. SEARCH MIME SUBJECT "hello world")? > C: a UID SEARCH ADDRESS ANY fred@example.com ANY shouldn't be there. > 3.5. Client Fallbacks .. > Matching a localpart can be done either with "FROM Note that some widely-used servers process address fields as part of > parsing, so that e.g. "From: " may be rewritten as > "From: fred@example.com" or the other way around. Some of these > fallback searches may yield different results on different servers. Right. So is it really even useful to suggest using "FROM 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 3F4783A6AB5 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:20:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.317 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 ocZYUCkjJe6r for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8AF3A6981 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.80.10] (92.40.80.10.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.80.10]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:20:58 +0000 Message-ID: <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:19:40 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Arnt Gulbrandsen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:20:54 -0000 Timo Sirainen wrote: >Hello people, > >Let's see if we can get our first RFC out: > >This message officially starts the MOrg Working Group Last Call for the >following document: > >The IMAP SEARCH=INTHREAD and THREAD=REFS Extensions > > > Most of my comments are editorial: In Section 2: > An IMAP server (see [RFC3501]) that supports the THREAD=REFS > extension MUST announce THREAD=REFS as capabilities. > as a capability. > This extension > adds no new commands and responses, only a new thread algorithm. > I think s/thread/threading. [...] > An IMAP server that supports SEARCH=INTHREAD MUST announce both > SEARCH=INTHREAD and THREAD=REFS as capabilities. This extension > I suggest changing "This extension" to "The SEARCH=INTHREAD extension" > adds > no new commands and responses, but adds four new search-keys, > INTHREAD, THREADROOT, THREADLEAF and MESSAGEID, and one search > return option, THREAD=REFS. > [...] >3.4. The MESSAGEID Search Key > > The MESSAGEID search key takes a sigle argument, and matches a > message if that message's normalized nessage-id is the same as the > argument. > I think the document needs to define what "normalized" means here. >4. The THREAD=REFS Thread Algorithm > > The THREAD=REFS thread algorithm is defined as the part of > THREAD=REFERENCES (see [RFC5256]) which concerns itself with the > References, In-Reply-To and Message-ID fields. THREAD=REFS ignores > Subject. > Does this mean that the algorithm is effectively ignoring step (5) from RFC 5256? > It is explicitly permitted for the server to persistently store > threading information, even if this causes the server to return > different information than it would otherwise. This can happen if > the first messages in a thread are deleted, for example. > This is a strange paragraph. Why is it needed? From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sat Feb 14 14:29:12 2009 Return-Path: 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 C11A13A6C3D for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:29:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 sz-eR8VUngYi for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5313A6BF3 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.80.10] (92.40.80.10.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.80.10]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:29:15 +0000 Message-ID: <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:27:58 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Arnt Gulbrandsen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:29:12 -0000 Some additional comments: >3.1. The INTHREAD Search Key > > [...] > The INTHREAD search-key matches a message if its subsidiary search- > key matches at least one message in the same thread as the message. > Every time I looked at this sentence it makes me 20 seconds in order to understand it. Wouldn't it be better to say that first all messages matching the subsidiary search-key are found. Then all messages belonging to the same threads are returned. >3.5. The THREAD=* Search Return Option(s) > > The THREAD=* search return options enables the client to select > which threading algorithm the server uses when processing INTHREAD, > THREADROOT and THREADLEAF as part of a SEARCH command. If THREAD=* > isn't specified, then the default for the SEARCH command is > THREAD=REFS. > I hate to raise this issue, but should we establish an IANA registry for search return options? >5. Formal Syntax > > The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur > Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [RFC5234]. [RFC3501] defines > the non-terminals "capability" and "search-key", [RFC4466] defines > "search-return-opt", [RFC5256] defines "thread-alg", and [RFC5322] > defines "id-left" and "id-right". > > Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case- > insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define > token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST > accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion. > > capability =/ "SEARCH=INTHREAD" / "THREAD=REFS" > > search-key =/ "INTHREAD" SP search-key / "MESSAGEID" SP "<" > id-left "@" id-right ">" > I am not entirely convinced (but I haven't yet checked that '"<" id-left "@" id-right ">"' corresponds to atom IMAP syntax. I think quoted strings/literals would be needed to represent some values. > / "THREADROOT" / > "THREADLEAF" > From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sat Feb 14 14:35:06 2009 Return-Path: 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 6EBE63A680B for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:35:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 vawwSMKc1+eE for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7D63A6806 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.80.10] (92.40.80.10.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.80.10]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:35:11 +0000 Message-ID: <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:33:51 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Arnt Gulbrandsen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:35:06 -0000 Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> 5. Formal Syntax >> >> The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur >> Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [RFC5234]. [RFC3501] defines >> the non-terminals "capability" and "search-key", [RFC4466] defines >> "search-return-opt", [RFC5256] defines "thread-alg", and [RFC5322] >> defines "id-left" and "id-right". >> >> Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case- >> insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define >> token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST >> accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion. >> >> capability =/ "SEARCH=INTHREAD" / "THREAD=REFS" >> >> search-key =/ "INTHREAD" SP search-key / "MESSAGEID" SP "<" >> id-left "@" id-right ">" > > I am not entirely convinced (but I haven't yet checked that '"<" > id-left "@" id-right ">"' corresponds > to atom IMAP syntax. I think quoted strings/literals would be needed > to represent some values. I am now positive about that: From RFC 5322: id-left = dot-atom-text / obs-id-left id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal / obs-id-right dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext) atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Printable US-ASCII "!" / "#" / ; characters not including "$" / "%" / ; specials. Used for atoms. "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "/" / "=" / "?" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "~" "{" and "}" are not allowed in IMAP atom: atom = 1*ATOM-CHAR ATOM-CHAR = atom-specials = "(" / ")" / "{" / SP / CTL / list-wildcards / quoted-specials / resp-specials >> / "THREADROOT" / >> "THREADLEAF" > From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sat Feb 14 14:37:41 2009 Return-Path: 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 011F43A6BF3 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:37:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 AT9NGR9sAtcd for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6EE3A6806 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.80.10] (92.40.80.10.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.80.10]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:37:45 +0000 Message-ID: <4997476A.6000508@isode.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:36:26 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Timo Sirainen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:37:41 -0000 Timo Sirainen wrote: >Hello people, > >Let's see if we can get our first RFC out: > >This message officially starts the MOrg Working Group Last Call for the >following document: > >The IMAP SEARCH=INTHREAD and THREAD=REFS Extensions > > > >The Working Group Last Call for this document starts on February 13th >and will end on February 28th. Please send any comments to the MOrg >mailing list or to the document authors. If you chose to do the latter, >please CC both Timo Sirainen and Randall Gellens >. Reviews that found no issues are also welcomed, so >if you review the document and find it acceptable, please let the >mailing list/authors+chairs know as well. > > I think the document is in a good shape, but I think a couple of my issues should be addressed before going further (ABNF and definition of normalization). From cyrus@daboo.name Sat Feb 14 19:08:10 2009 Return-Path: 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 A06FD3A68E5 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:08:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 lgjH5AHbDevZ for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:08:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C584F3A6358 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDE711B60F2; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:08:16 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.mulberrymail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTXQpopJ0OBU; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:08:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.200] (unknown [10.0.1.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36D711B60E4; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:08:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:08:14 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Timo Sirainen , morg@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=1115 Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:08:10 -0000 Hi Timo, --On February 13, 2009 5:50:53 PM -0500 Timo Sirainen wrote: > The IMAP SEARCH=INTHREAD and THREAD=REFS Extensions > > Technically OK, but I was left wondering why the heck I would want to implement the new SEARCH capabilities if I were a client. I think the document needs to have more examples or concrete use cases to better explain why these changes are important and how clients would make use of them, and what the benefit to the server is to implement. At this point in time I think every IMAP extension has got to do a good job "selling itself" - because a lot of people (not the crowd here) think IMAP is good enough and more extensions are just "bloat" that no one will really use. All the MORG documents have got to make a strong case for why their adoption is beneficial. For this document an explanation of what clients are doing today with threads and IMAP protocol use with that vs what would happen with the new extension would go a long way to justifying implementing this. -- Cyrus Daboo From arnt@oryx.com Sun Feb 15 05:56:59 2009 Return-Path: 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 F3DE53A6993 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:56:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 PL8e9fWI7xzH for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:56:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48533A685A for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3A34AC71; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:57:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1234706222-9030-1/6/153 (2 recipients); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:57:02 +0100 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:58:11 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Alexey Melnikov References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:56:59 -0000 More later. Just now: Alexey Melnikov writes: > Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> search-key =/ "INTHREAD" SP search-key / "MESSAGEID" SP "<" >>> id-left "@" id-right ">" >> >> I am not entirely convinced (but I haven't yet checked that '"<" >> id-left "@" id-right ">"' corresponds >> to atom IMAP syntax. I think quoted strings/literals would be needed >> to represent some values. > > I am now positive about that: Why? A client isn't permitted to send INTHREAD unless the server says it understands this syntax, so AFAICT nothing constrains the arguments to atoms. Arnt From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sun Feb 15 06:06:02 2009 Return-Path: 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 C8A1E3A6988 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:06:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.776 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 YNnBCP+ioNuz for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D0D3A6902 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.219.94] (92.40.219.94.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.219.94]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:06:08 +0000 Message-ID: <4998213A.2040407@isode.com> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:05:46 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Arnt Gulbrandsen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:06:02 -0000 Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > More later. Just now: > > Alexey Melnikov writes: > >> Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >>>> search-key =/ "INTHREAD" SP search-key / "MESSAGEID" SP "<" >>>> id-left "@" id-right ">" >>> >>> I am not entirely convinced (but I haven't yet checked that '"<" >>> id-left "@" id-right ">"' corresponds >>> to atom IMAP syntax. I think quoted strings/literals would be needed >>> to represent some values. >> >> I am now positive about that: > > Why? > > A client isn't permitted to send INTHREAD unless the server says it > understands this syntax, so AFAICT nothing constrains the arguments to > atoms. Creating new data types is bad, as it complicates protocol parsers. If you remember, we had the same argument in Lemonade about URIs and at the end decided not to define a new data type. From arnt@oryx.com Sun Feb 15 09:21:40 2009 Return-Path: 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 6E4E83A68EC for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:21:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 gl4YDJELAf7Q for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (kalyani.oryx.com [195.30.37.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9573A6774 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalyani.oryx.com (localhost.oryx.com [127.0.0.1]) by kalyani.oryx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A924AC71; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:21:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from arnt@oryx.com (HELO lochnagar) by kalyani.oryx.com (Archiveopteryx 3.1.0) with esmtp id 1234718504-9030-1/6/154 (3 recipients); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:21:44 +0100 Message-Id: <3Whni/9Ljl/ofd3aSK80Cg.md5@lochnagar> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:22:53 +0100 From: Arnt Gulbrandsen To: Alexey Melnikov References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> <4998213A.2040407@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4998213A.2040407@isode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:21:40 -0000 Alexey Melnikov writes: > Creating new data types is bad, as it complicates protocol parsers. > If you remember, we had the same argument in Lemonade about URIs and > at the end decided not to define a new data type. I'm not creating one. Message-IDs exist and the point is to use them. That are three possibilities: 1. Send "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" on the wire. As I put into the current draft. 2. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and say "when dequoted, MUST be < id-left @ id-right >". (As I recall, some Lemonade document does something like that.) 3. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and skip the rules about what it contains. I dislike option 3 since the whole point is to deal with message-ids, so option 3 doesn't fit with the goal. As a general principle I think the syntax should correspond to the goal it supposedly expresses. I dislike option 2 since I, as a parser, still have to check "<" id-left "@" id-right ">", it's just that I have to check atom syntax first and then parse the output of that. Option 2 complies with RFC 1925 point 6a, but doesn't any extra value. (The matter would be different if something wanted the argument to be an atom.) That leaves option 1 as my favoured option. Your? Arnt From tss@iki.fi Sun Feb 15 09:38:09 2009 Return-Path: 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 9F2E23A6A18 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 kYUMIaQcG+fx for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:38:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [82.118.211.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE813A6813 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:38:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.15.3] (c-24-127-33-71.hsd1.va.comcast.net [24.127.33.71]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82AD16471E2; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:38:14 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: <258D229B-AEA1-4FBE-A30C-964310826AF6@iki.fi> From: Timo Sirainen To: Arnt Gulbrandsen In-Reply-To: <3Whni/9Ljl/ofd3aSK80Cg.md5@lochnagar> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:38:12 -0500 References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> <4998213A.2040407@isode.com> <3Whni/9Ljl/ofd3aSK80Cg.md5@lochnagar> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:38:09 -0000 On Feb 15, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Alexey Melnikov writes: >> Creating new data types is bad, as it complicates protocol parsers. >> If you remember, we had the same argument in Lemonade about URIs >> and at the end decided not to define a new data type. > > I'm not creating one. Message-IDs exist and the point is to use > them. That are three possibilities: > > 1. Send "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" on the wire. As I put into the > current draft. Dovecot typically parses input by reading and parsing the whole command. That won't work if the input doesn't have only valid IMAP atoms/strings/etc, so this would pretty much break my parser. > 2. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and say "when dequoted, MUST be < > id-left @ id-right >". (As I recall, some Lemonade document does > something like that.) > > 3. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and skip the rules about what it > contains. By "IMAP atom" I guess you mean string or something? From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sun Feb 15 11:09:07 2009 Return-Path: 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 EDA5E3A6AED for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:09:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.844 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SBL=1.551] 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 baUhc3MYCyyO for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F2C3A6824 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.219.94] (92.40.219.94.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.219.94]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:09:14 +0000 Message-ID: <49986833.4030509@isode.com> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:08:35 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Timo Sirainen References: <1234565453.6132.886.camel@timo-desktop> <4997437C.2090601@isode.com> <4997456E.9090103@isode.com> <499746CF.4050807@isode.com> <4998213A.2040407@isode.com> <3Whni/9Ljl/ofd3aSK80Cg.md5@lochnagar> <258D229B-AEA1-4FBE-A30C-964310826AF6@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <258D229B-AEA1-4FBE-A30C-964310826AF6@iki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: morg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MORG] WGLC on draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00 X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Messaging Organization List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:09:08 -0000 Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Feb 15, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > >> Alexey Melnikov writes: >> >>> Creating new data types is bad, as it complicates protocol parsers. >>> If you remember, we had the same argument in Lemonade about URIs >>> and at the end decided not to define a new data type. >> >> I'm not creating one. Message-IDs exist and the point is to use >> them. That are three possibilities: >> >> 1. Send "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" on the wire. As I put into the >> current draft. > > Dovecot typically parses input by reading and parsing the whole > command. That won't work if the input doesn't have only valid IMAP > atoms/strings/etc, so this would pretty much break my parser. Same for Isode's implementation. I would have to special case the new message-id data type. >> 2. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and say "when dequoted, MUST be < >> id-left @ id-right >". (As I recall, some Lemonade document does >> something like that.) >> >> 3. Send an IMAP atom on the wire and skip the rules about what it >> contains. > > By "IMAP atom" I guess you mean string or something? IMAP atom can't be used, because obsolete Message-id syntax allows for some weird things, including bare CRs. So yes, I think this means IMAP string.