[Design] Re: Email Spec
bkirsch at osafoundation.org
Thu Mar 15 18:55:32 PST 2007
As a follow up to what Mimi is saying see my comments inline.
On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
> Okay, sorry the addressing fields/conflict discussion on the list
> was a little over my head. Why do changes to the addressing fields
> result in conflicts?
> How is what I'm describing different from the Editor/Updater
> manually adding the Sender to the CC: field in the detail view?
> (Just chatted with bkirsch, and the behavior I'm describing is *no*
> different than a user manually changing the addressing fields...so
> that leads me to think that there's an issue if changing the
> addressing fields raises conflicts. Morgen, can you speak to that?)
> If this is true, we should log a bug, even if just to keep track of
> it for post-preview.
The question is, does altering addressing fields result in conflicts
on the receivers end?
With the attached patch, that represents latest changes to mail
service to support Edit / Update, when I change the addressing fields
on an Item (MailStamp) it raises a conflict for the receivers.
This may not be the intended behavior.
What would be ideal is if any changes to the addressing fields did
not result in a conflict unless
a local change was made that contradicts the values in the update.￼
> On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>>> However, I am concerned about others who come along to edit and/
>>> or update the item accidentally leaving the Sender of the thread
>>> because they don't think to explicitly add the Sender back in,
>>> once the original Sender has been usurped in the byline by the
>>> next Editor/Updater. See more below...
>>>> I do see:
>>>> Note: When 'Updating' Items, the previous Sender: or Updater:
>>>> should be automatically added to the CC: field of the message if
>>>> they are not already mentioned in one of the Addressing fields:
>>>> From, To, CC, BCC.
>>>> Are we no longer planning to notify the sender of the message?
>>>> Another question is what happens if another user receives the
>>>> Edit / Update via sharing then
>>>> Edits the item and sends it to the participants.
>>>> The senders info will not be in the Chandler from. to, cc fields
>>>> unless manually added which means
>>>> the sender could get lost if later changes are applied. An
>>>> example, John not in the addressing fields of
>>>> the email (but is the sender) edits the mail and sends it.
>>>> When receiving the mail the other collaborators have John as the
>>>> last modifier (sender). But if
>>>> Jean who is one of the collaborators makes a change then John
>>>> will no longer be the last sender
>>>> and since he is not in any of the Chandler addressing fields
>>>> will no longer participate in the
>>> Ahh okay (great catch!), then the above should read:
>>> Note: When Editing (not Updating) Sent items, the previous
>>> Sender: or Updater: should be automatically added to the CC:
>>> field of the message if they are not already mentioned in one of
>>> the Addressing fields: From, To, CC, BCC.
>>> Does that address this issue? I was too focused on the Update
>> It does address the issue. However, with the current division of
>> work it would fall to Bryan Stearns
>> to make this change since it is in the detail view and not the
>> mail service layer that a new sender
>> gets assigned. I have not yet seen Bryan's changes to decouple the
>> from address from the sender
>> so I can't comment on how easy it would be to add in this change.
>> Bryan can you add the old sender to the cc list if not already in
>> the addressing fields?
>> I can write the code for you to determine if an Email Address is
>> in the current MailStamp items
>> to, cc, Chandler from, or bcc and manually add the the address to
>> the cc if not.
>> The API would be something like this:
>> def addSenderToWorkflow(item, sender):
>> # would do all the logic to handle the adding of the sender to
>> the cc list if needed
>> So to sum up. Any email addresses in the Chandler from get added
>> to the Emails CC: list but
>> not Chandler's CC: list. Any change to the sender results in the
>> sender being added to the
>> Chandler CC: list if not already in the addressing fields.
>> Now as I stated in an earlier email, any change to the addressing
>> fields (adding the old sender
>> to the CC: list) will result in a conflict for all recipients of
>> the update.
>> Is that the desired behavior?
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/mixed
More information about the Design