Re: Interesting (gross?) use of CHANNEL

[Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What do people think of using "mailto" in CHANNEL? That is, if I have 
> a message in a mailbox, I can CHANNEL it using a mailto URL in order 
> to effect the sending of the message. My thought is that the target 
> of the mailto should only be the envelope recipient and should not 
> change the contents of the message header in anyway.

Urgh. If you mailto:, I would expect the server to simply BARF
the request back to you. Unless, in some bizarre circumstance,
it made sense to honour the request. The bottom line is that
the server has to interpret the presented URI in whatever
form makes sense to it. If the URI that's presented is absurd,
the server gets to deal with it as such.

> In my ideal 
> picture, the server would take the message and prepend Resent-* 
> fields using the destination and whatever other fields are specified 
> in the URL. 

No! The draft does not mention it, but the (my) intent is that
the server (or anything else in the data path) canNOT mess
with the data content in any way.

> You would, of course, only be able to CHANNEL to mailto 
> for an entire message or for a subpart which was itself of type 
> message/rfc822. This seems to me an ideal way to implement the Resend 
> command in many clients, and could even be used to send draft 
> messages out for the first time.

Yuk. No. Again, CHANNEL is NOT alowwed to modify the data content
in ANY way. I will spell this out loudly in the next draft.

--lyndon