Closed Bug 428274 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Can't accept Invitation when received via a mailgroup since Lightning 0.8

Categories

(Calendar :: E-mail based Scheduling (iTIP/iMIP), defect)

Product:
Calendar
Component:
E-mail based Scheduling (iTIP/iMIP)
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
critical

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED

People

(Reporter: balengyel, Assigned: dbo)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

An email invitation received via a mailgroup
6.87 KB, text/plain
Details 
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13
Build Identifier: 0.8  2008033118

I got an invitation that I receive as a member of a mailgroup, not as an individual. 

ATTENDEE;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;X-REPLYTIME=16021022T15
 1800Z;RSVP=TRUE;CN="TSP-SYS (ETH)":MAILTO:TSP-SYS@ex1.eemea.ericsson.se

Where TSP-SYS is the group name.

The accept/decline buttons appear on the top of the mail, however if I press accept nothing happens. The event is NOT added to my calendar. Looking at the error log I see:

Error: setAttendeeResponse: You are not on the list of invited attendees, delegation is not supported yet.  See bug 420516 for details.
Source File: chrome://lightning/content/imip-bar.js
Line: 310

In lightning 0.7 the same thing worked.

For me this makes 0.8 totally unusable. 90% of the invitations in my company are distributed using mailing lists. I am reverting to 0.7.

I find it totally unacceptable that features working in 0.7 are intentionally withdrawn in 0.8. 

Where can I find the 0.7 Linux intel download? Please help!

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual Results:  
Event not inserted in calendar.

Expected Results:  
Event should be inserted in the calendar.
Component: Lightning Only → E-mail based Scheduling (iTIP/iMIP)
QA Contact: lightning → email-scheduling
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
I really wonder why this was working in 0.7.

This bug is a bit different, I told Balazs to open a new bug for this. The patch in bug 428392 will make it work with non-default identities, but if you are not in the To or CC, but an attendee of the event (mailinglist case), then it will fail, thinking its about delegation.

The right thing to do would probably be to not compare to/cc with the available identities, but to compare the invitations attendees (from parsed ICS) with the identities.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
Most likely, users' available identities won't show up as invitations attendees in ICS either.  In this case, the attendee is the mailing list for a fixed team/dept.
Here is a mail invitation I received via a mailing list. It does in no way contain my email address. The fact that I belong to the mailgroup is stored only on the remote Exchange server.

I am not able to accept the invitation.

I have two basic questions about this whole business:

- I don't understand why do we need any checks on the email address at all. Once you received the mail you can copy-paste the invitation manually, so what do we gain by not allowing the same thing to be done automatically. A few bug reports :-) 

- As demonstrated by this attachment it is very common, that legitimate invitation do not carry any of my addresses, so even if we would want to check the incoming invitation we cant.

So I propose to just remove the whole attendee checking.
I pop mail from several accounts in one mailbox and ran into the same problem. I support Balazs, imho there's no need for the check of an emailadress until we have some kind of linking between calendars and emailaccounts (so an invite on account x preferably is destinated for calendar y). Confirming.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: wanted-calendar0.9?
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: PC → All
Flags: wanted-calendar0.9? → wanted-calendar0.9+
From what I understood in the RFC, a reply to a meeting invitation is made by sending an ics event that contains no attendees but the organizer (maybe), and your own attendee. If you are not in the attendee list of the event sent (comment #3), then you are not directly invited, so it is delegation.

In short we need to find out who you are, to do a correct reply. This was previously done via the to/cc list.

If you are not an attendee, neither in to nor in the ICS, then the correct thing to do would probably be to allow adding the event to your calendar, without sending an invitation reply, or doing something w.r.t delegation.
(In reply to comment #6)

I agree, and this is the improvement we are looking for. Balazs
Seeing the same problem. Until this is resolved, how can I revert back to 0.7 without losing my current calendar entries (Thunderbird complains when starting with 0.7 now).
(In reply to comment #8)
Instead of reverting to 0.7, you can add a dummy account using an e-mail address from the invitation. 

I have problems concerning this issue, because my e-mail address was changed (by the provider). The invitation received on the old address are not recognized. 

Creating dummy accounts is ugly, and I receive invitations via 8 separate mailing lists. Adding eight dummy accounts seems a bad idea.
What I do not understand from comment 6, and this is probably due to the fact that I have no clue about the internals is that when you see the invitation from a mailing list you do receive it by one of your account that has in the properties the corresponding mail address. Why can't you use that when preparing the reply to the invitation?
This issue is really bothering me.  EVERY event invitation I receive at my work is by way of mail groups.  So I am unable to accept anything, and no events are added to my calendar.  This has the effect of making lightning completely useless for me, since I only really use it for event reminders.

I tried adding the mailgroup as an identity, but even that did not solve my problem.  I simply can't accept any events.
I agree with thehans -- Accepting events needs to work properly when the event is addressed to a mailing list. I don't agree with Comment #6 -- If you the invite was sent to a mailing list which you're on, then you are implicitly an invitee, and accepting the invitation should send a reply on you behalf.
@thehans I submitted a quick patch on two files before (see bug 428392).  It is not perfect (frankly I didn't spend time thinking of a sound solution; my focus is to make it working).  I use it on a daily basis to accept events, and haven't found any issue yet.  You could patch yourself, or drop me an email if you need the xpi file.
Ziru, will your patch be included in the next release?
@Kristian Most likely, no.  But the people working on lightening will provide a better solution in the next release, I believe.
IMHO this bug is VERY critical because it makes Lightning useless for enterprises.
So it can not help for the adoption of Lightning in enterprises.
I struggled to have Lightning deployed in my company, and we need to revert to 0.7, not very great :-/

Question : is this bug a duplicate of 420516, I don't see the difference

Tips : to add the event to your calendar by the way, you can drag & drop the ics from the attachments section to the calendar button of the ModeToobar
Depends on: 420516
Here are two points to contribute to this bug discussion -- and mybe help to clarify it:
For some more details, pl. see 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2445 and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2446  with named chapters.

1. adding an event/todo received via list 
With rfc2446#section-3.7.2 it's defined as "CUA MAY ignore or accept the request as the 'Calendar User' wishes."
==> so it would be wise for LG/SB to allow the user to decide for any invitation he/she receives.
(I think the nightly code has been changed already this way ! ???)
 

2. receiving as an ATTENDEE on a (company) mailing list.
The RFC 2446 3.7.2 Attendee Property Considerations speaks about a "general approach to finding a 'Calendar User' in an attendee list"  .... 

It's my understanding the "attendee list" should be part of the ICS data and be defined with entries as described with  rfc2445#section-4.2.3 Calendar User Type.
Shouldn't be a list be named like this:
 ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=GROUP:MAILTO:ietf-calsch@imc.org  ???

The RFC also says:
"If not specified on a property that allows this parameter, the default is INDIVIDUAL."

From the attachment https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=317854
I can't find any entry which says there is a "list". So any of the ATTENDEEs entries are INDIVIDUALS ... the posters tell us there lists!?? Can't be seen from the entries ... And the CUA can't ask back ;-)

Anyway, if LG/SB acting as the "Calendar User Agent" (CUA) gives the "Calendar User" (CU) the freedom to add the received invitation to his/her calendar (see ad 1.\\ above), the open question is:  

How to response for an ACCEPT/DECLINE etc. if the CU is NOT named in the ICS invitation/data?

What would be WRONG (at least from my interpretation of the RFCs), to response as an DELEGATE.

Also RFC helps here:
rfc2445#section-4.2.11 Group or List Membership 

There are two examples:

 ATTENDEE;MEMBER="MAILTO:ietf-calsch@imc.org":MAILTO:jsmith@host.com
 ATTENDEE;MEMBER="MAILTO:projectA@host.com","MAILTO:projectB@host.com":MAILTO:janedoe@host.com
 
Following this RFC guidelines should solve the "list/group" invitation issues.
Accept-and-respond-as-delegate is a good feature to have in later release if not ready in 0.8.   The problem with 0.8 release is that it broke the basic Accept-and-add-to-your-local-calendar behavior, which worked fine in 0.7.

As Maxime pointed out, a simple workaround for 0.8 users is to drag & drop the
attached ics file to the calendar panel.  I wish I knew this trick two months back.

(In reply to comment #18)

> From the attachment https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=317854
> I can't find any entry which says there is a "list". So any of the ATTENDEEs
> entries are INDIVIDUALS ... the posters tell us there lists!?? Can't be seen
> from the entries ... And the CUA can't ask back ;-)

PDLMOMFORU@ex1.eemea.ericsson.se is the address of the mailing list. Thats all the information you get.

I also think, that even if you can not solve the accept/response problem, it would be a huge step forward if the user could at least Accept-and-add-to-the-local-calendar.
Balazs
i have found downloads for lightning 0.7 for mac and win

mac: http://www.downsoft.com/download/email/lightning/_37768.html

win: http://www.download.com/Lightning/3000-2368_4-10660747.html

but my problem now is that the 0.7 version is trying to read the data from the 0.8 version. how do i get rid of this old data file? where is it located on a mac?

since a lot of my meeting requests come from outlook users and sent to a group, they do not come as a .ics file, any suggestions?


thanks
Flags: wanted-calendar0.9+ → blocking-calendar0.9+
Flags: blocking-calendar0.9+ → wanted-calendar0.9+
Now, what is the strategy of the LG team here?

Simon 'sipaq' Paquet changed to:blocking-calendar0.9+
and Daniel resets to: wanted-calendar0.9+

So, is there any plan to follow RFC (see #18) and let the ATTENDEE accept invitation received on a list .... and further more how to ANSWER (Accept/Decline, ...) such an invitation? 
The LG community is waiting for a clear answer here!
Günter
Günther, any fixes for this bug are greatly appreciated, but this bug won't hold off the next release. Feel free to submit a patch!

Dear Daniel,
you very well know about my experience to contribute to the Lightning project .. not only with following the different bugs/news/etc but also with some coding etc.

But I have to say I decided to stay back from coding contributions for LG. There are reasons for this, just to name some
- structure of the code (backend / frontend) with a 'very' complex/difficult structure but with very few explanations 
- it seems to me there is very limited cooperativeness to support new members for the LG team (also I have to mention Philipp has given excellent support) 
- limited possibility to code&generate it as an extension .. this was postponed to a version like 1.x 
(for 'extension' see David Aschers posting: "Re: Plans for moving SeaMonkey and Thunderbird to Mercurial" and following comments by Dan Mosedale)

Last not least .. maybe you should listen a bit more to the community .. also with heavy load (I'm sure you have) you should have noticed my name in meantime. 
Ciao
GÜNTER 

So it starts again: as soon as bug that prevent usage should be fixed but imply some amount of work, the bug moves from blocking to wanted and will probably finally stay unfixed when 0.9 comes out. 

Then we will hear the excuse "but we are not yet at 1.0" so its normal that bugs remain and then even later "sorry but you have to wait from TB3"! 

Apparently I'm no more the only one to find that objectives management is questionnable!
I'd like to add my vote that this issue be considered a blocker. It seems to me that this is an *essential* feature of a calendar, if it's to be at all useful in a business environment.
I agree 120% with Kristian (#26) and I am appalled at how lightly this critical flaw/bug is being seen by some.
I have voted for this bug as well. Not sure where I can find details on which open bugs have the most votes, but I would think that 13 votes makes this high on the list. Are these votes actuallly looked at when prioritizing bug fixes?

As (#20) mentioned: if you can not or do not want to fix this according to the RFC (#18) for 0.9 than at least make it usable; do not stop the user from adding the event to his calendar (and not by dragging the event onto the Calendar button). 
I'd like to add my vote that this issue be considered a blocker. 


Sorry, just noticed I didn't voted yet .. here it's now ;-)
Günter
PLEASE refrain from adding "me too" comments to a bug. Bugs are for technical discussion only. If you would like to vote for this bug, do so, but there is no need for a comment.
May be if people would be confident their votes are not blatantly ignored, they would be less vocal ;-)
(In reply to comment #25)
Maybe my comment is out of subject as said in comment #31, but I would like know if Daniel could you explain why this bug is no more blocking but only wanted ?
Is the number of vote taken into consideration ?
I try to figure why a bug is tag "blocking"
there is something else I don't understand, this bug prevent users to upgrade to 0.8 or force them to downgrade with difficulties to 0.7. If ln 0.9 is released without this bug fixed, again the same will happen.
If you tend to make ln used in company this one is a critical bug
By the way if ln 0.9 as not enough bug fixed the amount of bug to be fix for the 1.0 will be awesome.
Excuse my ignorance, but I really try to understand where and how you want to go with ligthning 1.0
Regards
Blocks: 419804
Flags: blocking-calendar0.9?
I have some similar problems, but I'm not sure if it's the same:

1. My work email account is fishy@company.com, in the enterprise exchange server, it's an alias of wangyuxuan@company.com (this email address was set as one of the identifies of this account), so that when other co-workers send meeting invitations, wangyuxuan@company.com will appear in the receipt list. When I got such email, there're "Accept" and "Decline" button appears on the top of the email, but click them won't do anything.

To clarify, I have an account that is fishy@company.com, and wangyuxuan@company.com is also one of the identifies of this account.

btw, this account use local inbox.

2. I use my google account to do some test, I create an event in google calender, and add both fishy@company.com and another imap account as the attendee. I got the email in Thunderbird, but the "Accept" button for fishy@company.com still doesn't work. The "Accept" button for the imap account works, a confirmation email was sent back to my gmail. But after that, this event didn't appear in my Lightning calendar. I still need to manually add this event to the calendar.


I suggest that Lightning should add a feature to open .ics files, so that whether how the invitation email looks like and whether Lightning can handle it, Lightning can always add the event by the attached ics file.
Depends on: 431522
Removing dependency on bug 420516: We don't necessarily need full delegation since it's valid to add an attendee on REPLY. The organizer will figure out whether to include it to the attendees list.
Bug 431522 will add configuration options to select an email identity that is taken for such REPLYs (if available, else uses the default identity/account); ought to be fixed with the patch on that bug.
No longer depends on: 420516
Assignee: nobody → daniel.boelzle
fixed with bug 431522
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago → 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 0.9
Flags: blocking-calendar0.9?
I'm using .9pre build 2008071619.  Now, when I click on "Accept" for an invitation, I get a pop up asking which calendar I want to add it to, but the list is blank.  Before this build, I never even got a pop up.

Also the error console says "gCalendarStatusFeedback is not defined   chrome://calendar/content/calendar-management.js    Line:51"
(In reply to comment #38)
Nathan: That's bug 444276.
Checked in nightly build 2008072219 -> VERIFIED
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/activity-stream

https://github.com/mozilla/activity-stream/commit/a6958e96fd93397d4953129b33ba2a93ec7b15bb
Merge pull request #4166 from k88hudson/bug428274

Bug 1428274 - AS Router should handle 204, 302, 500 codes approrpiately
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: