On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 14:45 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 1/20/2021 10:41 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 10:53 -0800, Ned Freed wrote: > > > But if you know that it's a reaction the UA can check for this > > > sort of thing and handle it appropriately. I note that handling > > > is unlikely to be to display the message as-is, so tricks like > > > this are unlikely to work all that well. > > > > "appropriately" is too vague, IMHO. some guidance on how this > > should be presented is called for, I think. otherwise this is no > > better than the "me too" or "*rofl*" messages we already had. > > Forgive me, but it is important that this specification NOT specify > or give substantial guidance about presentation choices. I don't mean very specific guidance, but some wording about whether the reactions should be aggregated or not? or some wording that reactions will not necessarily be presented in any specific order, neither chronologically, origin-wise nor thematically. I don't think that would be any more restrictive than the language about the use of base-emojis. I do like how the steps for processing are specified, in particular that the reaction itself should be considered removed from the message itself (internally to the MUA). This implies quite a bit of the presentation, really. > Such choices are the purview of user experience / usability > designers. As a body, the IETF does not have expertise in that realm. granted. > > > Medium, OTOH, has a limit of 50 repeats. I've seen BBSes > > > that impose no limits whatsoever. > > > > I think it is reasonable to restrict the number of emojis to a > > handful, perhaps 2-3. > > Why? > > Is there an established pattern of excess? No. > Is there a danger to system operation? No. > Do we have a basis for deciding what the limit should be? No. > What will the damage be to the recipient? None. ok. the current draft says "The content of this part is restricted to single line of emoji." this does set an upper bound, although in octets (MUST 998, SHOULD 78) rather than emojis. > > that ties in to point 4 - the spammer can send an innocuous > > message, and the actual attention grabbing text via reactions to > > their own message. > > Perhaps you can point to some empirical research that substantiates > this threat? it is well established that spammers will exploit just about any communication channel available to them. in any case, nothing of this is an objection to the draft, I just wanted to bring up some considerations. -- regards, Kjetil T. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
