incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alfredo Abambres <alfredoabamb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Email bridge bot
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:56:01 GMT
Thank you Bruno for trying to make this. I can't be much of assistance on
this point, but if you need a "regular user" to help you test it, just wave
:-)

http://alfredo.abambres.com

*"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke*


On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
stenyak@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right now, in part due to its alpha state, and in part due to bugs (I can't
> receive newBlip notifications, etc), emails are only sent when the user
> writes "bot:send\n". At that very moment, the bot sends a single email.
>
> Regarding synchronization schedule, we could keep a list of "blips not yet
> synced to email", each of which would have a timeout. Whenever the blip
> contents is edited, the blip timeout gets reset. Blips that reach the
> timeout command the bot to sync themselves. Having that basic mechanism,
> there can be additional rules (for example, all ancestors of a blip have to
> be synced before the child blip is synced. stuff like that).
>
> The timeout period could be configurable, and we can take existing
> platforms are a reference. Some examples:
>  - GMail's "undo" (the atrophied uncle of Wave's "edit") used to be
> customizable from 0 to 30 seconds. Recently they increased the limit to 60
> seconds.
>  - Some forums and social networks allow to choose "inmediate" (zero
> seconds) and "daily"/"weekly" (timeout-less cronjobs).
>  - Wiki software often includes a manual checkbox to force/prevent
> notification messages (so either no wait, or infinite wait).
>  - IM services always operate with zero seconds.
>  - Funnily enough, I can't remember what the options were for Google Wave.
> I think weekly/daily/hourly?
>  - Etc.
>
> Personally, given Wave's nature, I'm inclined to think this should be a
> per-wave setting (or per wave #tag, or st). There's no single timeout that
> will satisfy the numerous Wave use cases, so forcing the user to choose one
> (when the bot is added to the wave) miiight be a good idea.
> Anyway, this is an endemic issue of the Wave concept: so far nobody has
> come up with a way to differentiate and adapt Wave's behaviour to the many
> different communication platforms it can mimic for each specific wave.
> Traditional communications forms differentiate themselves by forcing the
> user to choose different clients each time (chat client vs forum URL vs
> email software vs social network app vs...). Wave eliminates that barrier
> but provides no way to build the barrier again when it's needed.
>
>
> Automatically detecting "too big" changes shouldn't be too hard, I briefly
> experimented with it this afternoon: store the plaintext character count in
> each blip's metadata field (the [mailllist-bot?...] string thingie) when
> the blip is synced; and don't sync again unless the count has changed X
> percent and/or Y units.
>
>
>
> As for federation, I have no idea really. I believe that email
> synchronization is something requested by a big percentage of wave users,
> so bundling it with wiab by default, and making it easy and straightfoward
> to use, can make a lot of sense for Wave's future. Also, you eliminate the
> dependency from third party servers (I bet most GoogleWave-era bots are now
> offline...).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Ali Lown <ali@lown.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Bruno,
> >
> > This looks quite cool.
> >
> > The main thing I am thinking is how 'big' an event has to be before
> > triggering sending an email. (A spelling correction is hardly worth
> > it)
> > We also don't want a large sequence of emails being sent for changes
> > happening within a few seconds of each other (think simultaneous
> > editing of a large wave), so some sort of time threshold will need to
> > be considered.
> >
> > Regarding federation, where should the bot be (presumably on the
> > server hosting the wave)?
> >
> > Anyway, keep up the work on this.
> >
> > Ali
> >
> > PS. I suspect infrastructure should be able to put in a special rule
> > to allow this mail if we can designate some 'official' bot from a
> > particular server.
> >
> > On 7 June 2013 22:48, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <stenyak@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > So I've been working on this for the past days. Still a
> work-in-progress,
> > > and will need at least another week of development hours (read: 2-4
> weeks
> > > of actual time) before we can really think about migrating to wave.
> > >
> > > The apache mailing list is rejecting the emails from my bot, it thinks
> > > they're spam. So for the time being, here's a screenshot-based preview:
> > > http://imgur.com/a/GtGY6
> > >
> > > --
> > > Saludos,
> > >      Bruno González
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
> > > http://www.stenyak.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Saludos,
>      Bruno González
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
> http://www.stenyak.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message