Subject: RE: [Simple] Issue 5: Deleted State

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 07:24:44 -0500

Good point - if I read it and delete it, the IMDN will be "read", as
there is one and only one IMDN report.  Read happens before Delete, so
"read" it is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:55 PM
To: Burger, Eric
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Simple] Issue 5: Deleted State

On Nov 7, 2005, at 4:24 PM, Burger, Eric wrote:

> MDN has a concept of reporting that the UAS automatically deleted the
> message, versus the user deleting the message.
>
> The IMDN draft does not carry forward this concept, as it has not been
> of much use in the real world of MDN deployment.
>
> Does anyone care?

I don't :) I find this whole delete state useless for humans. I never 
want anyone to know if I deleted their message or not and I think no 
one wants to tell me either that they deleted my message. Having said 
that, I on the fence if we should keep this deleted state in there at 
all or not. It might be helpful for some automata applications that we 
haven't discovered yet, but should we clutter the protocol now for 
future applications or should we leave it for extensions?

Hisham

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

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:54:35 -0800

I think we can leave this as an extension. Any use case I can imagine  
either leaks private information, or could better be solved other ways.