On 1 Apr 2014, at 04:59, "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(_at_)panix(_dot_)com>
wrote:
At 15:33 -0700 on 03/31/2014, Bill McQuillan wrote about Re: [ietf-smtp]
[Uri-review] Registration request for smtp::
On Mon, 2014-03-31, Dave Thaler wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I am also registering submit:// URI
scheme, which is a similar URI schemes, but for designating Mail Submission
Agents.
My understanding from your email and from a glance at
draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda is that the proposed "submit" scheme is
not currently widely deployed, and hence the actual name is flexible.
My feedback is that the name "submit" is not a good name for the proposed
use.
Specifically, RFC 4395 states:
Avoid using names that are either very general purpose or associated
in the community with some other application or protocol.
There are many types of things you can "submit" (HTTP forms, etc.)
and since the proposed use here is specific to specific to SMTP, it should
not use a general purpose word like "submit" along.
"smtpsubmit" or similar would be much more appropriate.
I hope that whichever keyword is used, it is clearly
distinguished from "mailto".
Mailto invokes a MUA and supplies the To data and optionally other headers
such as subject, message body, cc, bcc, etc for a created message.
Right.
I know I'm a bit confused about this proposal. Is "submit"
intended to be a lower abstraction level? Or a replacement?
From reading the proposal, Submit seems to be a way of supplying the SMTP
server to be used to inject email into the system (ie: What you would enter
into a MUA "SMTP Server" Parm). It is a SMTP Server dedicated as the Mail
Submission Agent role as opposed to the more generic MTA role (which is
listed in a MX record) which can not only the target of a MUA injection
connection but also a SMTP Server to SMTP Server message forwarding
connection. The SMTP type seems to be a generic Server of the latter
type/function.
Almost. I think of MTAs as being a different type of service from the one
provided by MSAs, although they speak almost the same protocol.
So the intent was to use "smtp" only for server to server transfers. But I am
open to suggestions on whether this is reasonable or not.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp