On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 13:52 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/4/2021 12:41 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > > 2. If R's In-Reply-To: does reference one, then check R's message > > content for a part with a "reaction" Content-Disposition header > > field, at either the outermost level or as part of a multipart > > at the outermost level. > > > > This means a forwarded message will*not* get its embedded reactions > > processed. Well, forwarded messages will typically not have I-R-T set, > > but if a message includes previous correspondence as an attached MIME > > document. > > Not 'typically'. A forwarded message is not a reply. I can forward a message as a reply to a different message (drag and drop it as an attachment), but the "forward" button in my mail reader will not do that - it will only set References and not I-R-T. > So I'm not sure how this is a problem. It's not a problem, just an edge case. > In any event, if there is no In-reply-to: field, then this specification > is not relevant to that message. There is an In-Reply-To inside the attached message, that's my point. It could even be nested further. > > However, In-reply-to in messages in the attached > > correspondence will get their reactions processed if they are at the > > correct relative level in the structure. > > Let's see whether I understand, with an example meant to be more > interesting than the one in the specification: > > > From: me > > To: you > > Subject: I just got this message > > > > ---- Forwarded message > > From: someone else > > To: me > > In-Reply-To: a previous message between us > > Content-Disposition: reaction > > > > U+1F997 > > The containing message isn't using MIME, to make the forwarded message > an attachment. I think it doesn't matter, for this example. Well, a real example would have to use MIME, a MUA should not try to assign meaning to "---- Forwarded message" or "---- Vidaresendt melding", but I'll consider your example a shorthand for a proper MIME structure. > And the question is whether the contained message's reaction will be > processed as a reaction. The answer depends on how the MUA processes > such things. > > In terms of semantics, the reaction is associated with that contained > (forwarded) message and not with the upper level (containing) message. OK, so processing MAY recurse into the MIME structure? I don't think the current step 2 allows this. This can cause duplication in the presentation of reactions, but I'm OK with this being a quality of implementation thing (e.g., keep track of messages-ids for messages with reactions to eliminate the duplication). -- venleg helsing, Kjetil T. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
