incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak)" <sten...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Email bridge bot
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:35:08 GMT
Haven't worked on the bot much these days, but I've cleaned up the commits
so that I can publish what I already have. Keep in mind this is an alpha
version, it lacks many features, has many bugs, etc.

https://github.com/stenyak/wave/commits/maillist

The email bot configuration is done directly in code:
src/org/waveprotocol/box/server/robots/agent/AbstractStkRobotAgent.java
After it suits your liking, recompile and run.


Usage:
 * Add "maillist-bot" address to a wave.
 * Whenever you want a blip to be sent as email, write  bot:send\n   (this
means you press enter)
 * The bot will detect this, remove the magic words you just wrote, and
send the email using the configuration specified in the sendEmail function.

I would be happy to have this code included as a branch in the official
apache-wave repository, but would prefer to be able to directly commit (as
opposed to having to squash several commits together into a .patch file,
send it for review, yadayada). If that's not possible, github would be the
official repo for maillist-bot development.

Feedback and contributions are welcome! :-)



On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Alain Levesque
<albonono@wavewatchers.org>wrote:

> I do have time also to be a ''regular user'' . Feel free to contact me as
> neeeded. Bravo! Bruno
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Alfredo Abambres <
> alfredoabambres@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alain Levesque Wavewatchers
> Wavyemailbeta:*
> *
> *Web Page <http://albonobo.com/>
> *
>



-- 
Saludos,
     Bruno González

_______________________________________________
Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
http://www.stenyak.com

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