# Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Wed, 08 Feb 1995 13:53:05 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- In reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"

    Message-Id: <9502081953.AA26395@ulua.hal.com>

    To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)

    Subject: Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Feb 1995 10:35:10 MST."

                 <v02110104ab5eafb4ab1b@[165.227.40.30]>

    Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 13:53:05 -0600

    From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

In message <v02110104ab5eafb4ab1b@[165.227.40.30]>, Paul Hoffman writes:
>
>mailserverurl = "mailserver:" encoded822addr "/" subject "/" body

Why not use the existing name for this piece of functionality:

mail-server

as per MIME (rfc1521)?

I suggest that whenever possible, the name space of URI schemes and
MIME external body access types should conicide.

Perhaps URIs will supercede MIME external-body references.

But why make up a new name for functionality that already exists?

Dan

- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- In reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Revised Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-01.txt"