Hi Ali, Sending multiple versions of the email using the MIME implementation would be perfect, I have just a couple of questions... 1. I would assume we should send "text/plain" and "text/html", should we also send something like "application/wave"? What would "application/wave" look like? is there some data format I could use to build this out? 2. What are we expecting in this email... is it just any new blips that are unread on my wave? When should it be sent if its a noisy wave? (should we include the last (parent) blips?) 3. Should emails be created for public waves?
The postfix solution sounds perfect :) 4. I take it the autogenerated email address will just be the same as the wave id we use? Regards Ben On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > > I've read through the JIRA issue and it talks about having two messages > > being sent but one of those should just be the wave message being updated > > though the wave system, and a second email should be sent though the old > > school system using the update to the wave using just the unread blip(s). > > I assume this is wrt the original description of > "The system would basically send 2 version of the wave. A "wave" > version, and an "email" version. The same way we do plain text / html > currently for email. So we would add an email header including a reference > to the current wave, so if the recipient is using a wave-compatible > service, it would know to switch to wave. Otherwise, if it does not > understand the wave header, it would just ignore it and use regular email. > Something like that." > > My reading of this is that we send a single email, but with multiple > contents (with different mime-types) in the way plain text/html email > messages work a la RFC 2110 (and friends). > > > This will require that the wave system holds a record of the official > email > > of the user that signed up to the wave system... > > [..] > > Yes it will. Bruno's system involved giving any user signed up to a > wave domain an email automatically (powered by postfix o.e.), which > the user could then choose to have forwarded to wherever they would > prefer. > The advantage of this method over handling it internally, is it allows > whatever form of munging the Wave server admin prefers. It also gives > us the users's 'email' programatically, which works nicely when we > start having it federated, as we don't need to perform cross-server > lookup's of a 'true' email. > > Thoughts? > > Ali > -- Regards Ben
