- From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:08:52 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: dee3@torque.pothole.com (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd), discuss@apps.ietf.org
At 02:00 AM 11/25/2001 -0500, Mark Baker wrote: > > At 01:26 AM 11/25/2001 -0500, Mark Baker wrote: > > > > Think a bit about the "mailto:" scheme. > > > > > >Typically pops up a new outgoing email box. Quite safe (it doesn't > > >send the email). > > > > You are confusing implementation with protocol. > >The mailto URI scheme is not associated with any protocol. See >section 3 of RFC 2368. URIs are protocols. They have format and they are exchanged. If you don't like the word protocol, then use "interchange specification". Whatever you call the latter, you are confusing it with the former. > > The idea that publicly transmitted information can be treated as "safe" -- > > without assorted, special certification is just plain wrong. > >What's wrong with wanting identifiers to identify, and nothing more? other than the fact that the question is not meaningful here, nothing. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2001 02:08:40 UTC