Martin Duerst | 5 Jan 07:47 2008
Picon

Please comment on draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04.txt


Hello Email Experts,

As you can see in the announcement below, I have just submitted
an updated version of the Internet Draft updating the mailto
URI scheme, after a long delay.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on this draft; I expect
to submit it to the IESG soon.

In particular, the current spec for mailto:, RFC 2368, contains
some advice against using a bcc field in a mailto: URI, but this
doesn't seem to be followed, and we were unable to find any reason,
so we removed it. Comments on this (both positive and negative,
if possible with reasons) would be appreciated.

With kind regards,   Martin.

P.S.: I'm not subscribed to ietf-822 <at> imc.org, so please keep me
      (and my coauthors) in the cc.

>From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
>Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:20:01 -0500
>Subject: I-D Action:draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04.txt 
>List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>       Title           : The 'mailto' URI Scheme
>       Author(s)       : M. Duerst, et al.
(Continue reading)

Dave Crocker | 15 Jan 19:18 2008
Picon

rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text


This is not about a problem with the current text, but rather a bit of 
confusion started by RFC 733 that might benefit from some clarifying language.

I see the confusion rear its head regularly and think it time to have some 
text that tries to help people understand the difference between information 
and its encoding...

Current:

> 3.6.2.  Originator fields
>    The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
>    message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
>    that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
>    for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
>    mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
>    message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
>    another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
>    "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
>    the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
>    by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
>    "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
>    appear.

Add after this:

    Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always present. The 
absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the information is redundant 
with the "From:" field, so it is not redundantly encoded into a separate 
field. The absence of the "Sender:" field sometimes confuses readers into 
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 15 Jan 06:30 2008
Picon

I-D Action:draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Internet Message Format
	Author(s)       : P. Resnick
	Filename        : draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt
	Pages           : 59
	Date            : 2008-01-15

This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax
for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the
framework of "electronic mail" messages.  This specification is a
revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded
Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA
Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and
incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt".

(Continue reading)

ned+ietf-822 | 15 Jan 22:00 2008

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text


> This is not about a problem with the current text, but rather a bit of
> confusion started by RFC 733 that might benefit from some clarifying language.

> I see the confusion rear its head regularly and think it time to have some
> text that tries to help people understand the difference between information
> and its encoding...

> Current:

> > 3.6.2.  Originator fields
> >    The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
> >    message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
> >    that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
> >    for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
> >    mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
> >    message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
> >    another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
> >    "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
> >    the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
> >    by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
> >    "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
> >    appear.

> Add after this:

>     Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always present. The
> absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the information is redundant
> with the "From:" field, so it is not redundantly encoded into a separate
> field. The absence of the "Sender:" field sometimes confuses readers into
(Continue reading)

Pete Resnick | 15 Jan 22:12 2008

New 2822upd-04 - obs-NO-WS-CTL


I'd be inclined for folks to go over this one with a fine toothed 
comb. (I know about some of the spacing issues; that's not what I 
mean. Review for content.)

For differences between -03 and -04, try this:

<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-resnick-2822upd-03.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-resnick-2822upd-04.txt>

For an HTML copy, try this:

http://resnick1.qualcomm.com/draft-resnick-2822upd-04.html

Things to note:

1. obs-qp, obs-body, and obs-unstruct each have NUL. obs-ctext, 
obs-qtext, and obs-dtext don't. Is that what's desired? (I'm happy to 
move NUL into all of them. I'm more worried about removing it from 
all of them.)

2. text moved into the body discussion, and specials moved into the 
atom discussion. Glad to move them elsewhere if you think necessary.

Any other comments welcome.

pr
--

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

(Continue reading)

Pete Resnick | 15 Jan 22:33 2008

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text


On 1/15/08 at 10:18 AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

>    Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always 
>present. The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the 
>information is redundant with the "From:" field, so it is not 
>redundantly encoded into a separate field. The absence of the 
>"Sender:" field sometimes confuses readers into believing that the 
>Sender responsible agent information has not been specified 
>explicitly.

How about this (to better conform to the current language):

Note: The transmitter information is always present. The absence of 
the "Sender:" field is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean that the 
agent responsible for transmission of the message has not been 
specified explicitly. The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means 
that the transmitter is identical to the author, so it is not 
redundantly placed into a separate field.

Does that convey the correct information?

pr
--

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Mark Martinec | 16 Jan 00:28 2008
Picon
Picon

rfc2822bis: "originator of the message" and "transmitter" not defined


> 3.6.2.
> [...]
>    The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
>    message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
>    that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
>    for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
>    mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
>    message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
>    another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
>    "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
>    the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>    "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
>    appear.

In this paragraph a term "originator of the message" is used for the first
and the only time, and is nowhere defined. Other text only speaks of
"originator fields" (= From, Sender, Reply-To).

Also, the term "transmitter" is used here for the first time too,
and is never defined.

The proper term could be borrowed from the:

> The "Sender:" field specifies the mailbox of the agent responsible
> for the actual transmission of the message.

(Continue reading)

Pete Resnick | 16 Jan 01:53 2008

Re: rfc2822bis: "originator of the message" and "transmitter" not defined


On 1/16/08 at 12:28 AM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:

>  > 3.6.2.
>>  [...]
>>     The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
>>     message.  The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
>>     that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
>>     for the writing of the message.  The "Sender:" field specifies the
>>     mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
>>     message.  For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
>>     another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
>>     "Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
>>     the "From:" field.  If the originator of the message can be indicated
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     "Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used.  Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
>>     appear.
>
>In this paragraph a term "originator of the message" is used for the 
>first and the only time, and is nowhere defined. Other text only 
>speaks of "originator fields" (= From, Sender, Reply-To).
>
>Also, the term "transmitter" is used here for the first time too, 
>and is never defined.

You are getting into territory where I feel like you're trying to 
overstate the obvious, and I can't figure out what problem you're 
trying to solve.
(Continue reading)

Frank Ellermann | 16 Jan 03:44 2008
Picon
Picon

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text


Pete Resnick wrote:

> Does that convey the correct information?

Yes, if it is understood that you are talking
about a message modulo Resent-* header fields.

Any "let's add a Sender" scheme starting with 
RFC 4409 8.1 has to be aware of Resent-*.

IMO "let's replace Sender" schemes are broken
by design.  If you know a good place to note
that an existing Sender MUST NOT be modified
please do.

 Frank

Dave Crocker | 16 Jan 04:21 2008
Picon

Re: rfc2822bis -- adding clarifying Sender: text


Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 1/15/08 at 10:18 AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>    Note: The Sender (responsible agent) information is always present. 
>> The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the information 
>> is redundant with the "From:" field, so it is not redundantly encoded 
>> into a separate field. The absence of the "Sender:" field sometimes 
>> confuses readers into believing that the Sender responsible agent 
>> information has not been specified explicitly.
> 
> How about this (to better conform to the current language):
> 
> Note: The transmitter information is always present. The absence of the 
> "Sender:" field is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean that the agent 
> responsible for transmission of the message has not been specified 
> explicitly. The absence of the "Sender:" field merely means that the 
> transmitter is identical to the author, so it is not redundantly placed 
> into a separate field.
> 
> Does that convey the correct information?

I think so, except use of the term "transmitter" does not have a direct copy 
in the preceding paragraph.  While the semantics are fine (is fine?) I think 
that particularly pedantic writing is needed since this is all about 
clarification.

That's why my suggested paragraph tried to echo the "responsible agent" 
phrasing from the preceding paragraph.  Anything that makes it essentially 
impossible to misconstrue the reference is fine with me.
(Continue reading)


Gmane