Subject: Re: [MORG] draft-gulbrandsen-imap-inthread-05

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:17:20 -0500

I guess I should still answer this..:

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 10:06 +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Timo Sirainen writes:
> > 1) I'd rather have it sort by the most recent INTERNALDATE rather than 
> > section 2.2's date. Otherwise spams and such containing dates in past 
> > can end up somewhere hidden in the middle of the mailbox and future 
> > dates always at the top of the mailbox.
> 
> I don't think all that really matters. I've seen internaldate snafus 
> too. But if you want it and noone opposes it, then I'll happily use the 
> text.

Yes, I'd like it. The idea was to always find the newest threads easily
so if the Date: header is a lot different from INTERNALDATE it again
makes the thread difficult to find.

> > 2) The sorting change only concerns about sorting thread roots, which 
> > isn't immediately obvious from the above, although it refers to step 
> > (4).
> 
> Hm, it doesn't sort siblings that way? I don't suppose it matters.

Nope. I haven't heard of any complains for the inside-thread sorting, so
I assume it works well enough in THREAD=REFERENCES. The only issue was
finding the threads. (Also I've been using that kind of threading in
Evolution for years now and I like it.)

> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > THREAD=REFS sorts thread roots by the most recent INTERNALDATE of each 
> > thread, replacing step(4) of THREAD=REFERENCES. This means that when 
> > a new message arrives, its thread becomes the latest thread.
> 
> I had something indistinguishable from that text in an unpublished revision ;)

Maybe the -06 will be perfect. :)
_______________________________________________
MORG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg
Note Well: http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:35:05 +0100

> Maybe the -06 will be perfect. :)

If so, can we issue an IETF LC the day after the MORG WG is formed?

Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:24:48 +0100

> Maybe the -06 will be perfect. :)

Time to post -06. Shall I do so as d-g-i-inthread or as 
draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00?

Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:27:58 +0100

Timo Sirainen answers me:
> The idea was to always find the newest threads easily so if the Date: 
> header is a lot different from INTERNALDATE it again makes the thread 
> difficult to find.

I've decided I agree with you. Below.

> Nope. I haven't heard of any complains for the inside-thread sorting, 
> so I assume it works well enough in THREAD=REFERENCES. The only issue 
> was finding the threads. (Also I've been using that kind of threading 
> in Evolution for years now and I like it.)

When reading a thread, you want to read messages as ordered by the 
senders — that gives the best context for each individual message. But 
when you look at the grand list of threads, you want to see them 
ordered by arrival time.

So this difference makes sense.

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:23:40 +0000

> draft-ietf-morg-inthread-00?

I think all drafts should be posted as draft-ietf-morg-* now.