* Dave Cridland [2020-10-06 21:45]:
> * There's a brief handwavey mention of RSM, but that requires an ordering.
> Order by the date on the last message OK to everyone? Most recent first?
Sounds good to me. (I assumed this to be the intented ordering from the
following sentence: "The Inbox consi
On 7 Oct 2020, at 03:35, Tedd Sterr wrote:
>
> > * There is a reference to MAM-FC, which I'll remove on the basis that I
> > don't
> > see any interest in trying to solve that problem generically from anyone
> > but me
>
> General solutions should be preferred where possible, though that can
> * There is a reference to MAM-FC, which I'll remove on the basis that I don't
> see any interest in trying to solve that problem generically from anyone
> but me
General solutions should be preferred where possible, though that can sometimes
result in more complexity than necessary in an att
Hi all,
Having been prodded into it by people implementing Inbox, I'm doing a sweep
over it.
So far, I've removed the two dangling references to the conversation
marking scheme we removed at the Summit, which seems uncontroversial.
* There is a reference to MAM-FC, which I'll remove on the basis
