On 11/2/2020 1:19 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2 Nov 2020, at 11:24, Dave Crocker wrote:
I don't disagree. However, the semantics provided by MDN is that of
associating a disposition with a particular message,
That's what In-Reply-To: does, more generally.
and it has all of
the machinery to do that association.
That's what MUA use of In-Reply-To: for threading does.
Associating a reaction with the
original messages seems to me much the same as associating an indication
that a message was "read" or "dispatched" or "deleted".
I don't recall seeing a discussion here (or elsewhere) that looked for
support of MDNs, that way, in MUAs.
Yes, it
definitely extends the purpose of MDNs, but it doesn't seem like a huge
stretch.
Whereas going from a handling semantic to substantive recipient content
semantic does seem like quite a basic change to me.
Adding the ability to have a reply message include content tagged as a
reaction adds to the semantics of email exchange.
When I think of reactions, I think of providing a UI to add a "Like"
button or similar. That seems separate to me from replies, and in some
That's the problem with focusing on a particular, user-level
implementation choice, rather than the underlying semantics -- the
'nature' -- of what is being done.
cases replaces it. Having the the user readable part allows you to do a
reply should you desire,
Except that that's not the nature of MDNs. And it's not how they are
(typically? Ever?) implemented.
As I said, I agree that this is a change in purpose for MDNs, but I
don't see it as particularly horrible distortion.
But as I said at the beginning, I can certainly live with Ned's
proposal. MDNs just struck me as cleaner.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822