On 3/5/2021 3:07 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
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.
You mean you can include a message in a reply. That's not typically
what is meant by forwarding. But yes, you can do that.
The example in my previous note still applies. The contained message is
self-contained and any references inside it are not affected by the
containing message. Similar, the contents of the containing message
(typically) does not reflect the contained message.
So I'm not sure how this is a problem.
It's not a problem, just an edge case.
Sorry, but so far, I am not seeing how it is even that.
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.
So? Again, I am still missing the point.
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.
As I said, I believe use of MIME to make the contained message an
attachment, rather than inline, does not affect this.
Since you apparently think otherwise, please explain.
OK, so processing MAY recurse into the MIME structure? I don't think
the current step 2 allows this.
Yes it does:
The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the
specific message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field,
The In-Reply-To: and Content-Disposition must be 'accompanying' each
other. In the same message.
This can cause duplication in the
presentation of reactions,
How?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
