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

[Benja Fallenstein]

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).

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

I guess I need to answer this because I don't think Marc can answer it 
;-) 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.

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

- Benja