Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)

Steve Dorner <sdorner@qualcomm.com> Mon, 19 September 1994 14:09 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02744; 19 Sep 94 10:09 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02740; 19 Sep 94 10:09 EDT
Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07478; 19 Sep 94 10:09 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA03727; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:05:50 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q004/QF.UiTNcKW00UdaEOc054>; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.59]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA06805 for <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:02:56 -0400
Received: from dorner1.isdn.uiuc.edu by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA04741 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu>); Mon, 19 Sep 1994 09:02:36 -0500
Received: from [192.17.16.11] (dorner2.isdn.uiuc.edu) by dorner1.isdn.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA00277 (5.67b/IDA-1.5); Mon, 19 Sep 1994 09:03:01 -0500
X-Sender: sdorner@192.17.16.10
Message-Id: <aaa346f759021101a322@[192.17.16.11]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 09:02:46 -0500
To: Cam Clarke <cclarke@notable.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Dorner <sdorner@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Question on RFC1460 (POP3)
Cc: ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu

At 2:01 AM 9/18/94, Cam Clarke wrote:
>Reading the archives makes me realize that I've found this mailing list a bit
>late and you folks have just finished a go-around on revising RFC1460.  What's
>involved in getting this idea on the agenda for the next update?

An act of god.  :-(

One big problem is that you would first have to come up with a standard way
to mark messages as read.  Some mailers use the Status: header.  Many do
not.

So the right way to approach this is to get the Internet community to agree
on a standard header for message status.  Once that's been accepted, pilot
your helocar back here and we can talk about how to properly handle the
header in POP3.

I really sympathize with your desire, but I just don't think it's going to
happen.

--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated
  Whosoever has lived long enough to find out what life is, knows how deep a
  debt of gratitude we owe to Adam.  He brought death into this world.
                                                                Mark Twain