Subject: RE: [lemonade] Replying to or editing a big list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:25:08 +0200

I would like to ask for clarification.
My understanding is that any part of the message can be replied to/forwarded using diff (at least that is the requirement in OMA).
Header is also part of the email message - so why would this be an exception?
It is not considered to be part of the email message?
Thanks.

Best regards: Zoltán Ördögh
E-mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +358 50 386 0566

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of ext Burger, Eric
Sent: 09 November, 2005 21:31
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lemonade] Replying to or editing a big list

There was a lot of discussion in the lemonade session at IETF 64 around
the issues with replying to or editing a big list of destinations.

A whole bunch of people thought the problem (a) is not real, (b) will go
away shortly, or (c) encourages stupid use of addresses over creating
lists.

How do we want to proceed?

1. Punt; try to convince OMA the requirement is not useful.

2. Take up the work item

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:54:15 -0800

>away shortly, or (c) encourages stupid use of addresses over creating

I'm in the (a) camp, personally.

>1. Punt; try to convince OMA the requirement is not useful.

Punt back to OMA: having a long list of rcpts only changes the size
of the packet sent without adding RTTs.

Before we can think of tackling this, I think some sort of estimation
of the number of rcpts involved and their average length would be
necessary, as well as info about critical thresholds of size, if
any.  (What's the MTU or TCP MSS for the sorts of links we're talking
about?)  Only with that info can we judge whether a practical
solution exists.  Yes, yes, we all know that rcpt counts are
increasing, but if this is supposed to be a bandwidth optimization
then we need the info necessary for judging whether a proposal
accomplishes that and does so sufficiently to be worth the complexity
it will introduce.

[email-masked] writes:
>My understanding is that any part of the message can be replied
>to/forwarded using diff (at least that is the requirement in OMA).

The SMTP envelope (MAIL From, RCPT To) is not part of the email message.

Philip Guenther

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:58:38 +0000

> It is not considered to be part of the email message?

Headers are distinct because they convey information to and from the 
messaging system itself, and/or are copies of that messaging data. 
Also, as their semantics and structure are well known to all actors 
within the system, it makes particular sense here *not* to use a 
generic diffing algorithm, but instead, a relatively specific set of 
operations aimed at covering the typical use-cases.

To put it another way, a diff in this instance is simply an example 
of a domain-specific compression codec, and headers are a very 
different domain to the comparitively arbitrary data found in message 
body parts.

It's not considered an exception, it's considered a more precise 
target to aim for.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:11:22 +0100

Dave Cridland writes:
> To put it another way, a diff in this instance is simply an example of 
> a domain-specific compression codec, and headers are a very different 
> domain to the comparitively arbitrary data found in message body 
> parts.

I haven't followed this thread, so I may be saying something everyone 
has rejected long ago... but I do note that if a sender uses the 
following syntax, then the field is diffed easily using the ordinary 
line algorithm, and the reader can still read it using the ordinary RFC 
2822 parser.

address-list    =       (address *("," CR LF SP address))

Arnt

---

From: "Stephane H. Maes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:34:18 -0800

>> it's considered a more precise
target to aim for. 
Agreed as long as other diffing cases for other parts are also described somewhere.

Stephane

_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
Director of Architecture - OCS & Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax / Office UM: +1-650-607-6296.
e-mail: [email-masked]
IM: shmaes (AIM/Y!/skype) or [email-masked] (MSN Messenger)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments
Subject: RE: [lemonade] Replying to or editing a big list

Dave.