Can't most of the power of this hypothetical new access-type
(message-retreival) be accomplished with the recently-added access-type
"mail-server"? Or am I missing somethign?
Yes, you're right. I had been thinking of `mail-server' being an MTA
function, but it isn't. Both are UA functions, but the `user' for
whom they act is different. With `mail-server' you have a cyborg
which is a repository for non-personal information, at least that is
the current use. With a message-retrieval function, this would retrieve
messages from a persons private message store (which implies that the
UA should probably request permission first from the real luser, or
possibly have an access-control-list to govern when to allow the
retrieval or whether to ask permission, etc etc).
So you're counter-suggesting:
(BTW: I don't see where the commands for access-type="mail-server"
are defined.. was that to be done in a separate RFC?)
I can go along with this. It isn't clear from section 7.3.3 if this
is the same for both sending out the announcement and in sending the
retrieval request. Retrieving a news message would assumably replace
the To: person(_at_)dom(_dot_)ain with To: usenet-server(_at_)dom(_dot_)ain ..
(It *was* 1AM when I wrote that other message...)