Okay, sorry the addressing fields/conflict discussion on the list was
a little over my head. Why do changes to the addressing fields result
in conflicts?
How is what I'm describing different from the Editor/Updater manually
adding the Sender to the CC: field in the detail view?
(Just chatted with bkirsch, and the behavior I'm describing is *no*
different than a user manually changing the addressing fields...so
that leads me to think that there's an issue if changing the
addressing fields raises conflicts. Morgen, can you speak to that?)
If this is true, we should log a bug, even if just to keep track of
it for post-preview.
Thx,
Mimi
On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
However, I am concerned about others who come along to edit and/or
update the item accidentally leaving the Sender of the thread
because they don't think to explicitly add the Sender back in,
once the original Sender has been usurped in the byline by the
next Editor/Updater. See more below...
I do see:
Note: When 'Updating' Items, the previous Sender: or Updater:
should be automatically added to the CC: field of the message if
they are not already mentioned in one of the Addressing fields:
From, To, CC, BCC.
Are we no longer planning to notify the sender of the message?
Another question is what happens if another user receives the
Edit / Update via sharing then
Edits the item and sends it to the participants.
The senders info will not be in the Chandler from. to, cc fields
unless manually added which means
the sender could get lost if later changes are applied. An
example, John not in the addressing fields of
the email (but is the sender) edits the mail and sends it.
When receiving the mail the other collaborators have John as the
last modifier (sender). But if
Jean who is one of the collaborators makes a change then John
will no longer be the last sender
and since he is not in any of the Chandler addressing fields will
no longer participate in the
conversation.
Ahh okay (great catch!), then the above should read:
Note: When Editing (not Updating) Sent items, the previous Sender:
or Updater: should be automatically added to the CC: field of the
message if they are not already mentioned in one of the Addressing
fields: From, To, CC, BCC.
Does that address this issue? I was too focused on the Update
scenario.
It does address the issue. However, with the current division of
work it would fall to Bryan Stearns
to make this change since it is in the detail view and not the mail
service layer that a new sender
gets assigned. I have not yet seen Bryan's changes to decouple the
from address from the sender
so I can't comment on how easy it would be to add in this change.
Bryan can you add the old sender to the cc list if not already in
the addressing fields?
I can write the code for you to determine if an Email Address is in
the current MailStamp items
to, cc, Chandler from, or bcc and manually add the the address to
the cc if not.
The API would be something like this:
def addSenderToWorkflow(item, sender):
# would do all the logic to handle the adding of the sender to
the cc list if needed
So to sum up. Any email addresses in the Chandler from get added to
the Emails CC: list but
not Chandler's CC: list. Any change to the sender results in the
sender being added to the
Chandler CC: list if not already in the addressing fields.
Now as I stated in an earlier email, any change to the addressing
fields (adding the old sender
to the CC: list) will result in a conflict for all recipients of
the update.
Is that the desired behavior?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
