# Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:35:21 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: mid and cid URLs -- Consensus!"
- In reply to: Al Gilman: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"

    From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

    Message-Id: <9511240845.AA20615@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com (Al Gilman)

    Subject: Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Nov 1995 01:03:29 EST." <9511240603.AA26689@severn.wash.inmet.com>

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:35:21 +0100

Al Gilman:
> Most of what you have to worry about is mail-client-generic and
> should be handled by a reference by title to whatever the mail
> security group tells us.
Oops - no such group.....I would like to have one, though; DRUMS
isn't supposed to write very much new prose, so it doesn't cut it.
Volunteers?
>
> One URL-specific function that I don't want to forget is that the
> current context URL -- the equivalent of the "Referrer:" header in
> HTTP -- should be automatically affixed to the sent mail by the
> client as perhaps a "Referrer:" or the weaker "References:"
> header.
>
> And I would be glad to do what I can to help with this.
Agree - "Referer" is probably the Right Thing, since References: is
limited to message-ID syntax. Should be included in both Mailto: and
Mailserver: descriptions (if they go ahead).

Great!

Harald A

- Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: mid and cid URLs -- Consensus!"
- In reply to: Al Gilman: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"