[Chandler-dev] Edit/update (email sharing) model thoughts
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Dec 8 14:12:08 PST 2006
At 11:02 AM 12/8/2006 -1000, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>To prevent this I propose that each Chandler instance should have a
>unique application level UUID. This UUID would be included as the
>mail header X-Chandler-ID.
>When a message is received if the sender is the same Chandler (the X-
>Chandler-ID matches) then ignore the message. This works nicely since
>one of the proposals
>for Preview is to have an option where Chandler only downloads mail
>from an IMAP or POP server that is sent from another Chandler. For
>this case, we can leverage
> the X-Chandler-ID as the key to determining if the message is from
>Chandler. Thus allowing users to continue working with traditional
>email clients while
>leveraging Chandler for intercommunication as is the case with the
>Edit / Update workflows.
Just FYI, but the protocol we've defined doesn't actually need this, in
that receiving an already-applied update is a silent no-op. Having this
header would allow us to skip some steps, but it's not strictly necessary.
Note also that there are privacy issues involved in having a UUID that gets
carried in all communications. I would also suggest that if we do this for
sharing purposes, it should be a different and *secure* UUID (i.e., one not
generated using the Ethernet hardware address) for each effective sharing
conduit, to minimize the amount of trackable information being distributed
about the person's machine.
More information about the chandler-dev