Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver)

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:07:22 -0800


To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:07:19 PST."
             <95Jan11.010728pst.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com> 
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:07:22 -0800
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Message-Id:  <9501111707.aa07149@paris.ics.uci.edu>

Larry writes:

> 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'll agree with Larry here.  Although I understand the desire to be
able to identify mail server resources, allowing the URL to specify
headers other than To and Subject would be a mistake.  The other headers
should be the purview of the mail-sending client, and the user should
be able to edit the message before it is sent.  Thus,

 <URL:mailserver:addressee/subject_text/body_line1/body_line2/...>

is all that is needed to cover retrieval operations.  Messages that
require input, such as a Your Name Here, can simply include that phrase
and ask that the user edit it before sending the message.  There are times
when a little less automation is a good thing.


......Roy Fielding   ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine  USA
                                     <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
                     <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>