Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!syd From: syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Confirm on open in elm ? Message-ID: <1990Nov19.182044.14572@DSI.COM> Date: 19 Nov 90 18:20:44 GMT References: <1990Nov19.162037.7631@amd.com> Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Lines: 76 indra@ashirvad.amd.com (Indra Singhal) writes: >Office automation packages like Applix's Alis provide a feature that >tells the sender whether a mail message was viewed, filed or deleted by >the receipient and the time and date the action was taken. This has >become a requirement now that our company is moving towards automation >and a paperless office. >Not everyone uses Alis. If elm could send such a 'confirmation on open' >message back to the sender, perhaps, based on the presence of an >X-Confirm: header line, we could push elm as the corporate standard MUA. >How difficult would the implementation be? Would the development team >consider it for a future release? How useful would this feature be to >the rest of the user community? This is a sticky issue. I have had lots of requests for it, and have been one of the major stumbling blocks to its implimentation. Let me defend my position. Lets make a comparision versus Electronic Mail and Paper mail first. In paper mail, normal mail has no audit trail, ie, you get it and read it and no one knows wheither or when either happened. Normal electronic mail is just like this. In paper mail their is, in the US at least, a more expensive option called Return-Receipt-Requested, in which the post office has you pay a fee and affix a card to the item which is mailed back to you showing when it was delivered. For an additional fee it will also show where and to whom delivered. Electronic mail, using most full feature MTA's, such as MMDF, sendmail and smail support the idea of the 'Return-Recept-To:' header which will tell the sender that the letter was delivered, and when it was delivered. This is like the US Postal Services green post card. However, their is nothing to say I ever opened your piece of mail and read it, perhaps it was signed for and I just threw it out. I could let it sit for days or weeks and then read it. With the concept of the MUA automatically telling you when and what I did with your mail, you have implimented a 'computer watchdog' to keep an eye on me and 'reduce' my privacy rights. This is 'Big Brother'ism and it bothers me. (Personal opinion) One method of reducing this intrusion is to have the MUA (elm) ask for permission to send a response, such as in: 'You have just saved a message on which the sender has requested acknowledgement of the save Should I send an acknowledgement of the save for you?' Similar messages could be asked for read/etc. The exact header to use needs to be discussed between all the MUA's and the author really should file an RFC about it. However, using an X- header temporarly is not out of the question. Technically: Its not that difficult. What it entails is placing more flags on the Status: line to indicate what replies have already been sent. Preventing multiple replies is however a more difficult problem. Their are many ways the mailbox could be left without updating the Status: lines thus loosing the infomation that a reply was sent. Also if other MUA's rewrite the status lines using only flags they understand, then the flag info could be lost if the user uses a combination of MUA's. However, no one has yet to propose or file the RFC, nor has anyone really discussed the privacy issues besides myself and one or two people in personal correspondence with me. Am I alone? Note, at best, I would make it an elmrc and/or Configurable option, such that it could be disabled by a user or site. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235