Re: Mail addresses as URLs
Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Mail addresses as URLs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 May 1993 22:16:00 +0200."
<9305112016.AA02577=guido@voorn.cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 00:16:18 -0500
Message-id: <7645.737183778@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Sender: mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu
Thus wrote:
>> Presumably this is going to be specific to address formats of the
>> general form we all know and love, "smtp://cs.indiana.edu/mvanheyn"
>> seems to me the most consistent and unambiguous method for specifying
>> my mail address. I think calling something "mail" or "mailto" is
>> rather unclear, since the number of different ways to specify mail
>> routing and the like is greater than one. We already have silly
>> ambiguity with "file:" being both local file reference and FTP; let's
>> not do that again with mail.
>
>On the contrary (as I argued before), rfc-822 mail addresses are
>independent of routing! E.g. at our site all outgoing mail from a
>workstation is first moved onto the central mail server machine which
>takes care of delivery using whatever method it sees fit. In fact
>most of our users won't even recognize "smtp" as the name of a mail
>delivery protocol.
>
>In general different sites may have different mechanisms to deliver
>mail, but the same mail address works for all (ideally, anyway).
Hmmm... I'll agree that "smtp" is too specific and a bit ill thought
out. However, I believe that "mail" or "mailto" or the like is too
general. Something like "rfc822" could be a bit clearer, albeit
rather cryptic. There has to be a better way.
(Most users I know wouldn't know "rfc822" any more than "smtp", I
acknowledge, but oh well.)
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu MIME & RIPEM accepted
De Gaulle remark[s ...] about the American "will to power, cloaking itself in
idealism." By now, this will to power is not so much cloaked in idealism as
it is drowned in fatuity. - Chomsky