From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id GNQVNYR7EmHXXQAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:13:40 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id WOGzMIR7EmExewAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:13:40 +0000 Received: from mail.notmuchmail.org (nmbug.tethera.net [144.217.243.247]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C47B027F81 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 15:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from nmbug.tethera.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FE8290AD; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (unknown [162.247.75.117]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34645290AC for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:13:32 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1628601211; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=AZawYSoGYhb2igtMWsxuJac/50NnEcUH0w1Hh1k7vYU=; b=5SPVt3BL5w9ooTK3slAfLF7K/Bzu9bUYZBr/knVlj3sr/uwllJGVetyot9X/OK5r4ew0c LpMMPGaE3NFiIOJDw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1628601211; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=AZawYSoGYhb2igtMWsxuJac/50NnEcUH0w1Hh1k7vYU=; b=AVdvRzBPbgmaJN7zdHuaibMqxtTT/3xe3u1bT4ZA+KgiyI79ubjpoBsBBY2rK8hAp2mVv qJj1rR8GfnuDKQTXrZArrjnL2Rp1zxqC97DI3n1DYjgxaPIXmdJu/n1UxVyilkGvlElXkOe QV7UNPJr4OugnsmJLjbzzTQiUMfrvt21R3vzMnHtmlcpbS/V4H732dYk4bVEsKBTS/5GVMq s82pTbW3CV78YaOZp887bbk7qKUjW9P9Q3wxFSu3Wy5FaDbn+3Ys04EXMOJhoTRwZoLuG4m rCGcn/rpXKzLUr1xI+jN0+z49srqcykyJG272bOSmmb91EtS/FIKkeMzagng== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 341A0F9A5 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 008B420729; Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:32:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: should notmuch handle or generate message responses (RFC 9078) (or, "why can't i =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=91=8D?= an e-mail message?") In-Reply-To: <87im0j2ffr.fsf@wedjat.horus-it.com> References: <87mtpv3763.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87im0j2ffr.fsf@wedjat.horus-it.com> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEX+i03xYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdACA4xvL/xI5dHedcnkfViyq84doe8zFRid9jW7CC9XBiI0QQf FgoAgwWCX+i03wWJBZ+mAAMLCQcJEOCS6zpcoQ26RxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25zLnNl cXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ/tr8E9NA10HvcAVlSxnox6z62KXCInWjZaiBIlgX6O5AxUKCAKbAQIeARYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADZHQD/Zx9nc3N2kj13AUsKMr/7zekBtgfSIGB3hRCU74Su G44A/34Yp6IAkndewLxb1WdRSokycnaCVyrk0nb4imeAYyoPtBc8ZGtnQGZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4u bmV0PojRBBMWCgCDBYJf6LTfBYkFn6YAAwsJBwkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3Rh dGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnL0Gwxvypz2tu1IPG+yu1zPjkiZwpscsitwrVvzN3bbADFQoI ApsBAh4BFiEEwp+KDAHzXjTYFqpc4JLrOlyhDboAAPkXAP0Z29z7jW+YzLzPTQML4EQLMbkHOfU4 +s+ki81Czt0WqgD/SJ8RyrqDCtEP8+E4ZSR01ysKqh+MUAsTaJlzZjehiQ24MwRf6LTfFgkrBgEE AdpHDwEBB0DkKHOW2kmqfAK461+acQ49gc2Z6VoXMChRqobGP0ubb4kBiAQYFgoBOgWCX+i03wWJ BZ+mAAkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3Jnfvo+ nHoxDwaLaJD8XZuXiaqBNZtIGXIypF1udBBRoc0CmwICHgG+oAQZFgoAbwWCX+i03wkQPp1xc3He VlxHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnaheiqE7Pfi3Atb3GGTw+ jFcBGOaobgzEJrhEuFpXREEWIQQttUkcnfDcj0MoY88+nXFzcd5WXAAAvrsBAIJ5sBg8Udocv25N stN/zWOiYpnjjvOjVMLH4fV3pWE1AP9T6hzHz7hRnAA8d01vqoxOlQ3O6cb/kFYAjqx3oMXSBhYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADX7gD/b83VObe14xrNP8xcltRrBZF5OE1rQSPkMNy+eWpk eCwA/1hxiS8ZxL5/elNjXiWuHXEvUGnRoVj745Vl48sZPVYMuDgEX+i03xIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEH QIGex1WZbH6xhUBve5mblScGYU+Y8QJOomXH+rr5tMsMAwEICYjJBBgWCgB7BYJf6LTfBYkFn6YA CRDgkus6XKENukcUAAAAAAAeACBzYWx0QG5vdGF0aW9ucy5zZXF1b2lhLXBncC5vcmcEAx9vTD3b J0SXkhvcRcCr6uIDJwic3KFKxkH1m4QW0QKbDAIeARYhBMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AAAX mwD8CWmukxwskU82RZLMk5fm1wCgMB5z8dA50KLw3rgsCykBAKg1w/Y7XpBS3SlXEegIg1K1e6dR fRxL7Z37WZXoH8AH Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 14:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: <871r7231vf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID-Hash: EVQC6MHNH3VNHT3O3RGREZDKKMGVDBR2 X-Message-ID-Hash: EVQC6MHNH3VNHT3O3RGREZDKKMGVDBR2 X-MailFrom: dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-notmuch.notmuchmail.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.2.1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1972041333512503239==" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1628601220; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=ehAbsVxkTeTBwC4GEuJpMiB/B4on0HJ/oJ3k4xPvmho=; b=M3rN/dD15CyT5bg2rSkC57Xyg7slXMaU0gLrdGqDGRK0PS7RGFbZaRyvbDmVEcUwxME79C ud8d4hiScX3vu1oQxq2abElDSm3YfgLNfBvz/lXVuXhKmshPbs0Z2A0zWlLfQgKWkjDRhe MLgptI9NgFlvKhZbnzmh6/z0EmbajJbSUFF0RSl/clppdPnky/AU4EVgoiGMtJTgXjKxFN ODiJU0MoSPeBnqwtW7lNR1d2O/i4yYqDRMEjIIn2PV7c81lk5LXWR8ezIlHT14VqWvm45n IeU8fpMpqAg5IiQes98x6aiFgZbnpzCkMOOwBXmmTJERDW4lks+446Kii/HB5g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1628601220; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ryTlumvbuHpupmGolCurYgpzqMkjLnO3Ge1EbvAHIZTAsAe6/YjpB+0KbjqxUj/eUhWyZe dnE6qP4oGmv/nsy860Z+KCyW1e5RsGnWuW/+7GGO3trYC9ULsM0mOza2FLFEGyoevtK7tn jViP1bnRNOrikgZudNF14X69OM+960a4erQy+czs1koxXdmS44hOgCVoPtlncn+Zg+shwA VALrcZNxq0XhvfomClFFLHeN+nAjso/68YXNb1na/+ZDlkPD9kBtX5Tb9eXhLyyAzQ/WZ+ IecSdvqsvStthwNtK/wBwHrMjDS2L6CIWT9CSo3lZRWZtu37LhKFgrh/gCrjcg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019 header.b=5SPVt3BL; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019rsa header.b=AVdvRzBP; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=fifthhorseman.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 144.217.243.247 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.02 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019 header.b=5SPVt3BL; dkim=fail ("body hash did not verify") header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019rsa header.b=AVdvRzBP; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=fifthhorseman.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 144.217.243.247 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: C47B027F81 X-Spam-Score: -3.02 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: AtMOgD9JsR03 --===============1972041333512503239== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri 2021-08-06 09:35:52 +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote: > Oh my... Are "+1" replies not sufficient anymore for some people, or is > this a means of allowing the authors to claim having created an RFC, no > matter how useless it is? ;-) fwiw, i think this is a little bit ridiculous too. =E2=98=BA But in addition to being an e-mail user, i also use instant messaging platforms. The targeted emoji feedback feature offered by platforms like Signal Private Messenger is a real boon to making the conversation flow -- especially in a fast-moving group discussion. By contrast, e-mail threads with a ton of "+1"s, are hard to read, daunting even to approach (does anyone like opening a thread with a dozen unread messages in it?), and are especially problematic when it's unclear which message a given "+1" is approving of. If we want e-mail to be able to offer a similar cadence and experience =2D- if we want a decentralized, federated e-mail system to be able to *compete* with messaging services, I think we do need to think about these affordances. Put another way: - for years, e-mail "experts" (including myself, not infrequently) have lamented patterns like "+1" or "metoo" threads, top-posting of trivial replies with huge quoted/attributed texts blindly re-re-re-transmitted, and other "netiquette violations" that do really legitimately have negative side effects for other participants in the thread. But users who generate messages falling into these patterns aren't "doing e-mail wrong," they're trying to express themselves, and they're relying on the tooling that most MUAs offer, clumsy as they may be. If we really want to minimize the negative side effects, we need to think about how to help people express themselves over e-mail, and make it easy/convenient/enjoyable to do so. Otherwise, e-mail will be relegated further and further into an awkward communications backwater, used only in certain work environments, and maybe feared or loathed by its users. :/ I'll also be clear: i don't like the weakening of public discourse to single-glyph responses to potentially-thoughtful messages (i also don't like 280-character limits, fwiw). But i do use them sometimes, and sometimes they're appropriate and the most light-weight way to communicate what's necessary to communicate. I'd rather have them available to me in e-mail. To my mind, there are some interesting wrinkles that come up in trying to apply the affordance to e-mail, specifically in this way. for example, if Alice sends Message-ID: X to Bob and Carol, and Bob sends Message-ID: Y that is In-Reply-To: X to Alice and Carol and is Content-Disposition: reaction (following RFC 9078), what would it mean if Carol sends Message-ID: Z that is In-Reply-To: Y (whether Content-Disposition: reaction or otherwise)? Cryptographically, they're also interesting: as formulated, these responses *cannot* be generated or interpreted responsibly with any of the current cryptographic e-mail standards that don't ensure that e-mail headers are protected the same as the message body. To fix this, we'd need to invest more work in projects like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection/. I don't have a lot of bandwidth to work on this myself right now, but if someone wanted to take a stab at figuring out these issues for notmuch, i would definitely be supportive. RFC 9078 is marked as experimental. notmuch development could offer a chance to contribute data to that experiment, if anyone is of a mind to do the work. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQttUkcnfDcj0MoY88+nXFzcd5WXAUCYRF0xAAKCRA+nXFzcd5W XGxCAP45dQWalDGDfcdN243xc/IwbHwindNzMWQhWJeS1PcDqgEArqDHt4n0KYI9 /vR1sAfhFR0Cup6bSiGpPb//vx6KsQ0= =ZmZ9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1972041333512503239== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============1972041333512503239==--