At 23:43 29/01/04, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
This mailing list is using current standards for Internet mail while we
talk about future standards. In this case, the standard we are using is
RFC 2919. You will notice that every message has a List-ID: header.
So I'll give the answer in public that I would have *much* preferred to
give in private: no
I agree with you. This list is to replace the RFC based mail. Respecting
RFCs will help those not yet aware of their spam containement capacity to
get documented.
One of the first change users quote when asked about the future mail
service they want is a way to sort their mails by the subject organization,
so they may prioritized their reading.
It will be my pleasure from time to time to provide manually that major
enhancement two decades before RFC 7919 :-)
Let drop fun. I am certainly not the only one who finds most of his
important mails buried in his "Junker" because his anti-spam is lost
between English/non English language. The only solution I found as many to
find them back to sort the Junk mail by subjects. This way you can easily
unjunk mailing lists related mails (private comment to a list - your
solution puts in my "in" not in my "list folder" (thank you) is often
qualified as spam due to the size of the quoted text. For that reason I now
send mails with [jfc] at the start of my subjects. So I can be sure I will
be able to fish the answers in the 500++ junk mails I get a day.
Now, what about devising a questionnaire to users and post it to get a real
users feed back ? This is NOT a trivial task because you have to have an
open minded exploratory vision of many possible futures, then to translate
it into the ways it could be perceived by the users and then ask lay people
in simple words to imagine with us what it would mean for them. So they
might respond. This work has started to be carried by Europe eTEN program
(intelligent ubiquity). A part from Speilberg's pictures (which is another
way to get market specifications) there are a lot of lessons to learn there.
We also may agree with Eric Hall about machine to machine messaging. We
suffer from a lack of IAB netwok modelization: this does not help basic
common thinking (I think New Generation Network calls for such a model).
Eric's proposition is layer 9 in ENSM (assistant layer: men and machine). A
true Telematic OS (distributed services or automation through the Internet)
can only be asynchornous messages oriented (an example could be QNX).
jfc