# Re: Another round of the mailserver URL

Alexander Dupuy (dupuy@smarts.com)
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 17:31:09 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: Survey of URI implementation work (was: Re: Follow up...)"
- Previous message: Erik Jul: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Another round of the mailserver URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Another round of the mailserver URL"

    Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 17:31:09 -0400

    From: dupuy@smarts.com (Alexander Dupuy)

    Message-Id: <9507072131.AA01588@just.smarts.com>

    To: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-lists@proper.com

    Subject: Re: Another round of the mailserver URL

> Please review this new draft so we can be sure it reflects the consensus of
> the WG.

I noticed that the suggestion that clients implementing the mailserver URL put
a header into generated messages indicating the source of the mailserver
URL which generated the message didn't make it into the new draft. This seems
like an extremely useful feature, not just for identifying the culprits in
cases where URLs are used to deliver, but also for mailserver administrators
who may be interested in how people are finding out about them.

Was there a reason that no such suggestion was made?

@alex

    --
    inet: dupuy@smarts.com
    Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
    GCS d?@ H s++: !g p? !au a w v US+++$ C++$ P+ 3 L E++ N+(!N) K- W M V- po- Y+
         t+ !5 j R G? tv-- b++ !D B- e>* u+(**)@ h--- f+ r++ n+ y+*

- Next message: Keith Moore: "Re: Survey of URI implementation work (was: Re: Follow up...)"
- Previous message: Erik Jul: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Another round of the mailserver URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Another round of the mailserver URL"