On Wed May 17 11:35:21 2006, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Personally, I'd be happiest with a URI to the new message, where
possible, but i appreciate there's security concerns there.
What form would such a URI take?
Can be an IMAP (draft-ietf-lemonade-rfc2192bis-02.txt) or HTTP URL.
Could reasonably be a mailto: URL, too, which might merely identify
the email address the mail arrived at, as a fallback. (OMA's EMN
format uses a non-IANA registered scheme for that kind of thing, too).
IMHO the account and message identification considerations belong
in
draft-ietf-sieve-notify rather than in the XMPP "profile" thereof
(which
would simply provide an instantiation of those considerations).
Maybe you are right, but I don't think that draft-ietf-sieve-notify
can prescribe any particular URI type, because this would vary from
one deployment/implementation to another.
It could say "Notifications SHOULD include a URL for the recipient to
use as a hint for locating the message. Where the nature of the
notification allows, this SHOULD be marked in a machine-readable
manner (such as an attribute in XML)."
Dave.
--
You see things; and you say "Why?"
But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw