Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver)

Stephen D. Williams (sdw@lig.net)
Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:20:52 +0000 (GMT)


Message-Id: <m0rS6j7-0009v8C@sdwsys>
From: sdw@lig.net (Stephen D. Williams)
Subject: Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver)
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com (Larry Masinter)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:20:52 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <95Jan11.010728pst.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com> from "Larry Masinter" at Jan 11, 95 01:07:19 am

Some mailservers require a special non-standard header (X-?)
to indicate with mailing list is intended.  The Linux developer
lists are this way, although I believe you can put the header in
the body if you can't affect the header.

Priority, expiry, etc. and other things that might need to be
ignored should go there.  In other words: headers are easily
ignored by software that doesn't understand them, while body
text is usually required to be fully within some syntax.
Thus headers are a good place to put 'hints', upward
compatible enhancements, meta info, etc.

> There are two issues: capabilities and syntax
> 
> One requirement for the capabilities of the 'mailserver' URL scheme is
> that it be at least as capable as the "message/external-body
> access-type=mail-server" outlined in RFC1521.TXT. Specifying subject
> is important, but (at least by this criteria) header fields other than
> subject isn't.  Being able to supply multi-line data is important.
> 
> I don't know if we have stronger requirements for "mailserver"; for
> example, for fill in fields, etc., you might be better off having a
> form with a ACTION="mailto:" URL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Stephen D. Williams    25Feb1965 VW,OH      sdw@lig.net http://www.lig.net/sdw
Senior Consultant      510.503.9227 CA Page 513.496.5223 OH Page BA Aug94-Dec95
OO R&D AI:NN/ES crypto     By Buggy: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
Firewalls/WWW servers ICBM: 39 38 34N 84 17 12W home, 37 58 41N 122 01 48W work
Pres.: Concinnous Consulting,Inc.;SDW Systems;Local Internet Gateway Co.29Nov94