Network Working Group A. Buxey Internet-Draft Loughborough University Expires: July 27, 2006 January 23, 2006 Clearing attributes on non-referenced material draft-buxey-document-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract RFC 822 [RFC0822] defines many headers which can be applied to email messages and RFC 2076 [RFC2076] provides a simple summary of the commonly occurring headers in headings of e-mail messages. Both of these RFCs define the 'In-Reply-To' and 'References' fields - which have since had their definitions improved in RFC 2822 [RFC2822] and RFC 1036 [RFC1036] respectively. These fields are used by 'thread capable' email clients to display messages grouped together in organised parent/child relationships that enable the reader to follow a train of thought or a process of information dissemination. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 However, if a reply to such a threaded message does not contain relevant follow-up information or is used as a platform to deliver a new message with new subject, then that reply is put within the already existing thread. This is known as 'Thread-Jacking'. This draft proposes a couple of techniques which can be undertaken to resolve this issue within the scope of email. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Thread-Jacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Creation of new threads via a simple procedure . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. A reply with new subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. A reply with new content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 1. Thread-Jacking Thread-Jacking, in email parlance, is defined as 'High-jacking a current topic with your own related or unrelated topic'. This can be done deliberately but is mainly done innocently without the user realising the effects - without a knowledge of the underlying reference method. Subject line change often occurs and is an obvious way to other readers that the new message is not part of the original thread. One common reason for this occurring is that it is a lot easier for a user to press the reply button in their client than it is to create a new mail and copy the mailing list address into the To: location of their client. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 2. Creation of new threads via a simple procedure A trivial method for new messages to be removed from previous threads is defined 2.1. A reply with new subject If the user replaces the email clients default Subject line when replying to an email within a threaded conversation, then the email client MUST clear the In-Reply-To and Reference fields. As this issue is mainly associated with users who use the Reply function of their email client as an easy route to getting an email sent to the recipients (the To: and Reply-To: fields being automatically populated) it is RECOMMENDED that email clients have a second method of replying to such emails. Such a method COULD be a qualifier key being pressed when clicking on the Reply button in a graphical email client, or an alternative key combination when using a text-based client e.g. Alt-R. 2.2. A reply with new content If a user deletes all previous content and creates a new body of content then the thread is no longer valid. The email client MUST clear the In-Reply-To and Reference fields. Email clients have their default quotation markings that define previously written content that a user is replying to. If none of these can be found in the body of the email when being sent, then the email client MUST treat this as a new message and clear the thread-aware attributes, if email security methods are in place such as public key signing then the fields must be removed before such processes occur. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 3. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 4. Security Considerations None. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 5. Acknowledgements Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. [RFC1036] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", RFC 1036, December 1987. [RFC2076] Palme, J., "Common Internet Message Headers", RFC 2076, February 1997. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. 6.2. Informative References Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 Author's Address Alan Buxey Loughborough University Epinal Way Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU UK Phone: +44-1509-222320 Email: a.l.m.buxey@lboro.ac.uk Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Clearing Thread Attributes January 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Buxey Expires July 27, 2006 [Page 10]