# Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:20:34 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Al Gilman: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"

    Message-Id: <199511230420.XAA05328@wilma.cs.utk.edu>

    From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:07:51 PST."

                 <95Nov22.200754pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:20:34 -0500

> For what it's worth, I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a mail
> recipient might put some part of a mail message into a web cache. A
> cache is a cache. A mail recipient interpreting a multipart message
> might treat included parts with a disposition URI as surrogates for
> the named parts FOR THE CONTEXT OF THAT MESSAGE, but in lieu of a
> stronger security context, interaction with the web browser's cache is
> a bad idea.

When I proposed that a mail message include cached copies of documents,
I was assuming that the mail message would include the same data structures
that a web browser would obtain from a catalog server, including
any authenticity and integrity provided by the catalog info server
as well as an expiration date. I agree that the security features
are essential before such a mechanism is deployed, but it doesn't
make any difference whether the data is emailed or retrieved from
a catalog info server.

Keith

- Next message: Al Gilman: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"