Re: Federation protocols

On 1 June 2013 16:50, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2013 14:54, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:
>> mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>> wrote:
>>
>>     Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 1 June 2013 03:49, Miles Fidelman
>>         <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
>>         <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>> >
>>         <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
>>
>>         <mailto:mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>             Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>                 We could indeed use SMTP for messaging and it has
>>         advantages,
>>                 but it would be nice to get the web up to be able to do
>>                 something as simple as sending messages between two
>>         parties
>>                 after more than 20 years.  We're not there yet, and if
>>         we can
>>                 even achieve that small step it's a victory!
>>
>>
>>             Umm, why?
>>
>>             Messaging is messaging.  The "web" is HTTP and hypertext -
>>             client-server computing.  Two different things.
>>
>>             And, by the way, there've been server-based email systems
>>         for at
>>             least 60 years.
>>
>>
>>         Try taking two users at random on the FSW on different
>>         networks.  Then try sending a message from user 1 to user 2.
>>          In many cases there's no standard way to do it.
>>
>>
>>     Ummm.... SMTP, SMS?
>>
>>
>> Sure what I mean is to translate that into the web.  ie that you have a
>> sender address and receiver address with a message body.  Major
>> communication systems, SMS, email, telphone, postal service all can do
>> this, but strangely the web (ie http) cant yet.  HTTP POST lets you send to
>> an address and a message body, but does NOT easily allow you to see who the
>> sender is.
>>
>
> Might I point out that it really damages your credibility if you don't
> actually understand what different protocols do, and the whole concept of
> layering.
>

Thanks for the feedback, I will try to be clearer, and am always happy to
improve my understanding.  Re credibility, I wasnt sure I had any! :)


>
> HTTP POST does NOT allow you to send to an address - it allows you to do a
> transaction between a client and a server (a specific machine, or something
> that masquerades as a single machine).  Any messaging going on is layered
> on top of (or below) HTTP - as in posting an email message to a mail server
> via HTTP, instead of SMTP -- when you use webmail, all you're doing is
> layering a GUI on top of some messaging infrastructure.


I see you point, but my understanding is that HTTP POST allows both headers
and a payload.  The payload could in theory be used to send a message.
However, to add the address of the sending party is problematic, meaning
that the receiver doesnt always easily know who the message was from.
There are a number of headers that could be used or this such as:

"From" : however this tends to be email only as it was inherited from the
email paradigm

"User-Agent" : however this is used to identify the browser, rather than,
the user.  Webmasters may note that spiders such as google and baidu
actually stuff the http address of the spider into this field as part of a
csv, though this is not idea.

To my knowledge, there's no top level header in the HTTP spec that allows
you to identify an HTTP user.  We could make one, but that would be
something new, that requires some text, and some consensus.


>
>
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>
>