Hi Barry,
Let me try to rephrase my personal objections regarding some specific cases of
using SHOULD in the latest draft.
In section 2.7:
o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the
notification message SHOULD be set to the address(es) specified in
the URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to").
I think there is a problem with this text. Surely the envelope recipient
is specified in the mailto URI itself, not in the to URI header. (Your
example in section 3 confirms that.) For example if mailto URI is
"mailto:0123456789(_at_)sms(_dot_)example(_dot_)net?to=evil@master.example.com", then the
envelope recipient is 0123456789(_at_)sms(_dot_)example(_dot_)net and not
evil(_at_)master(_dot_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_)
I think the text is also trying to say that both To: header and envelope
to should be set to the same value.
So, I suggest the paragraph is split into 2 paragraphs to separately
specify requirements on To: and envelope recipient.
o The "Subject:" field of the notification message MUST contain the
value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in
[Notify]. If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject"
header on the URI, then that value SHOULD be used.
I think this SHOULD should be upgraded to a MUST. Reason: I can see use
cases when :message is never used and Subject is specified in the mailto
URI itself. So I think
Also, Arnt has raised a good question about whether implementations are
allowed to strip/alter garbage in :message or subject URI header. I
think this should be addressed as well.
I also have a new question. It might be a stupid one, but I will ask it
anyway ;-). How References should be handled? Is the new message allowed
to reference the original message? Are References: allowed as mailto URI
headers?
**