W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1997

Re: E-mail access

From: <alanr@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 08:10:46 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch>, "'Gregory J. Woodhouse'" <gjw@wnetc.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org"@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Alan Robertson <alanr@bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <ML-3.3.864742246.1942.alanr@alanrhome.dr.lucent.com>
Alan Robertson <alanr@bell-labs.com> wrote:

> Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@opentext.ch> wrote:
> 
> > I don't see any reason to support both forms of access (Why have two ways
> > of doing something when there is no advantage of the second method over
> > the  first) 

 [ stuff omitted...]

> Such a gateway could be defined easily strictly in terms of such HTTP
> semantics as we are defining elsewhere.  Again, the issue for the spec is:
>      Is it worthwhile?
>           Will anyone implement it?
>           Would anyone use it?
>           What is it "just the right approach" for?
> 
> If it's worthwhile, then the questions about how it might be used come up.
> Things like: What kind of management entity is going to be looking at these
> results?  What do they need to do their job?, etc.

I erred in saying "strictly in terms of HTTP semantics".  There is one
significant difference between the email and HTTP worlds that matters here, and
that is authentication.  There are a number of differences between the two
environments that would seem to imply there could be more difficulty than my
previous note had indicated.

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr@bell-labs.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 1997 10:52:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT