Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:25:55 +0100


From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Message-Id: <9511211226.AA27645@mocha.bunyip.com>
To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com (Al Gilman)
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Nov 1995 21:30:32 EST." <9511200230.AA18745@severn.wash.inmet.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:25:55 +0100

Al,
just to throw more confusion onto the field:
perhaps what is needed is not best accomplished by mangling the URLs,
but to define what it actually means to perform a POST or GET action
on a mailto: URL?

For instance, what is the implication of saying that if you put up a
form with a METHOD=POST ACTION="mailto:garbagecollector@nowhere.com"?
If this form has a field called "subject" or "mail-subject", should that
field be systematically bound to the Subject: field?
(as an editable default for the user interaction when the user confirms
that he wishes to send mail, of course)

If the METHOD=GET, what then?
If instead, the URL is inside an <a href=>, what then?

Also, once you have solved the "any header" problem, you may go off and
solve the "sign this message" problem or the "fill in the blanks" problem.
No dearth of problems here....the "fileupload" RFC must be considered too.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the idea that we only need one of these 
beasts, but I'm not certain we can redefine something that has wide (and 
inconsistent) usage so easily.

Have fun (but cover all the bases)....

         Harald A