* Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> If we want e-mail to be able to offer a similar cadence and experience
> -- if we want a decentralized, federated e-mail system to be able to
> *compete* with messaging services, I think we do need to think about
> these affordances.
And who says that we want to (or
On Fri 2021-08-06 09:35:52 +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> Oh my... Are "+1" replies not sufficient anymore for some people, or is
> this a means of allowing the authors to claim having created an RFC, no
> matter how useless it is? ;-)
fwiw, i think this is a little bit ridiculous too. ☺
But in
On Thu, Aug 05 2021, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi notmuch folks--
>
> RFC 9078 is an experimental draft "Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction
> to a Message":
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9078.html
>
> In short form, this lets you "thumbs up" an e-mail message without
> sending a
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 09:35:52AM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> I believe that implementing this feature would be a waste of your
> talents, but that is of course for you to decide.
+1 :P
___
notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org
To
* Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9078.html
>
> In short form, this lets you "thumbs up" an e-mail message without
> sending a longer reply.
Oh my... Are "+1" replies not sufficient anymore for some people, or is
this a means of allowing the authors to claim having
Hi notmuch folks--
RFC 9078 is an experimental draft "Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction
to a Message":
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9078.html
In short form, this lets you "thumbs up" an e-mail message without
sending a longer reply.
Basically, it formalizes a way to respond to an
