- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: 09 Jul 2002 16:48:10 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 16:54, Mark Baker wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:00:12PM -0400, Amelia A Lewis wrote: > > Are there any other schemes that are largely write-only, associated with > > protocols that are effectively write-only (in SMTP, you can't ask for > > your mail; TURN has been deprecated for longer than I've been on the > > net, and ETRN signals the desire for the start of another transaction > > with role reversal)? How about read-only? POP is largely read-only, I > > suppose (updates happen outside the protocol). > > FWIW, SMTP isn't write-only. It has safe and idempotent methods; VRFY > and EXPN. Ahem. Which every paranoid admin disabled ten years ago. > So you could imagine having an identifier for a mailbox, clicking on > it, and seeing "'foo' is not a recognized user in the bar.com domain". > (i.e. the output of VRFY) Hmm. Okay, interesting. In a sense, it corresponds to GET, I suppose, at least GET used in the sense of "is it real, or is it 404?" Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 16:48:31 UTC