- From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:34:02 -0400
- CC: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > On 1 June 2013 18:13, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>> wrote: > > Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > > On 1 June 2013 16:50, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>> wrote: > > Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > > On 1 June 2013 14:54, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>>> wrote: > > Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > > > On 1 June 2013 03:49, Miles Fidelman > <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>> > > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> > <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net > <mailto: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. > > > Umm... HTTP authentication and/or SSL client side certificates. > > > Re HTTP Auth, are you saying it supported a userid that can be an http > profile? If so, I'd love to know more... > Read the friggin spec! (hint: google "http authentication") And that still begs the question: if you HAVE a userid, and you post a mail message in an HTTP envelope, you still need an addressing scheme and a mail distribution infrastructure. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 16:34:52 UTC