The important difference is that the master copy of the email resides at the sender, which means it is possible for them to update and revise it. With current SMTP the moment send is hit, the message is gone which is why band aids like this inboxpro approach exist.
For example I could imagine adding a header to emails that gives a canonical url for it and some cryptographic information as well as the original body. If the recipient is using regular SMTP and mail clients then things remain as today. If they are using the new system then the recipient client can make requests for updates, give queue time information, ask for tagging etc and automatically reflect those changes in what it shows.
I was just complaining about this problem today. If I'm CCed on an email exchange and 4 or 5 messages go back and forth then the problem is solved, i still have 5 unread measages in my inbox. In reality, I should have zero messages because the problem has been resolved but SMTP doesn't allow for that.
The problem with this approach is that it leads to everyone reading every email just in case they might have some relevant insight. I see this at my current job - there's a strong "just cc the whole team" attitude which leads to a frustrating quantity of irrelevant email.
Related to this is a common corporate problem where someone has a problem they perceive as somewhat urgent. They often send a message to several people, hoping to get the first possible answer. Sometimes the recipients experience diffusion of responsibility and no one answers, because each believes someone else is better able (or less busy).
There are systems with retraction capabilities for senders (e.g. Bloomberg MSG, though it is no competitor on price). But I haven't seen anything like a system which would downgrade messages already seen by others, etc.
Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.
I wasn't the one who called it that. I don't know that I want "frighteningly ambitious" in my email anyway.
Anyway, I'm always more impressed by people who can do great things within the confines of established procedure. It isn't nearly as hard to differentiate when you start from scratch.
Not necessarily. The recipient systems could automatically access the URL to check for updates - ie no human in the loop. At a minimum it would notify that a system related to the recipient has checked in, but there is no evidence that a human was behind it.
> So if both sender and recipient are using this, they'll end up demanding increasing classifications from each other in an infinite loop?
Presumably the system would only kick in for threads of discussion initiated by others and not yourself. So if you send an email, any replies to it would behave as normal.
That requires "standards" compliant behaviour which won't happen. Similar issues happened back in the days when people used to respond with "click this link to verify" as ill thought out anti-spam measures. The inboxpro proposal is also vulnerable to backscatter, joe jobs etc.
I think the actual solution will turn out to be something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000
The important difference is that the master copy of the email resides at the sender, which means it is possible for them to update and revise it. With current SMTP the moment send is hit, the message is gone which is why band aids like this inboxpro approach exist.
For example I could imagine adding a header to emails that gives a canonical url for it and some cryptographic information as well as the original body. If the recipient is using regular SMTP and mail clients then things remain as today. If they are using the new system then the recipient client can make requests for updates, give queue time information, ask for tagging etc and automatically reflect those changes in what it shows.