Re: [Gzz] New PEG: email_storage--marc

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:39:29AM +0100, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> 
> >Is it allowed to just define our own access-type like that? 
> >Or should we use a "x-..." type or ask IANA for an identifier?
> >
> 
> I don't think x-types are allowed either, but have to check :-/ -- but 
> it may still be a good way to mark that we're not using a registered 
> type. I think registering means publishing an RFC, which at this point 
> seems overkill (esp. as we're *not* sending e-mail with these access 
> types, which is what the RFCs assume).

Still, it's important to adhere to standards - let's not pull a Microsoft.

> >Additionally: are you planning to represent transclusions between messages
> >somehow? Probably not on this level, but above this level it would be nice.

> I want to use "this is the same"-typed xu links for that: we need 
> those anyway, e.g. because of the block publishing issue. So, we could 
> at some point have some heuristical algorithm that takes the 
> "In-Reply-To:" headers, gets the respective messages, takes the ">" 
> lines from the reply (stripping the ">"), and runs an EnfiladeAligner 
> over that data. It's going to be a bit tricky, but probably it can be 
> quite good at finding the transclusions.

Sounds good.

> Coming up with a format for sending email bodies as enfilades is, of 
> course, another issue entirely...

Yes. One that *will* need an RFC.

        Tuomas