Bruce Perens said: > From chuck Thu Oct 19 15:52:46 1995 > Return-Path: <chuck> > Received: by bertha.richnet.net > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.33); Thu, 19 Oct 95 15:52 EDT > Resent-Sender: chuck (Charles A. Stickelman) > X-POP3-Rcpt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: from mongo.pixar.com (mongo.pixar.com [138.72.50.60]) by > ns1.richnet.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA09976 for <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]>; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:42:06 -0400 > Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:42:06 -0400 > Received: by mongo.pixar.com (8.7.1) id OAA13141; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:39:53 > -0700 (PDT) > Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles A. Stickelman) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: an idea in search of comments > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:49:00 PDT." > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:39:43 -0700 > From: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Resent-Message-ID: <"oEAhs.A.aMD.jWshw"@mongo> > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/6874 > X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Precedence: list > Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The MIME presentation worked OK with my mail user-agent, EXMH. It was a good > deal more ugly and clunky than if you had simply embedded the URLs for the > same files in your message. EXMH would have recognized and highlighted the > URLs, and if I clicked on them it would have started Netscape to follow them. > Alas, that functionality doesn't seem to be universal. Pine didn't want anything to do with the URLs I embedded in a message. Which is more prevalent? Does it matter?
> I understand this is more of a complaint about my mail user-agent than about > the concept of using MIME. > > Thanks > > Bruce > One thing I've yet to test, but have been told works, is the message/alternative MIME-type. Apparently, you can write the message such that different locations or access-methods can be available. If the first one doesn't work (say host is not responding) then it tries the second, etc. This could provide a mechanism where alternative ftp servers could provide the packages. The same mechanism allows for alternative access-methods as well. If I made a package available, the order might be ftp.richnet.net via anon-ftp, bertha.richnet.net via mail server, ftp.debian.org via anon-ftp. I believe that this would not present any more complex user interaction than my first example. Chuck -- Charles A. Stickelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Practical Network Design (419) 529-3841 9 Chambers Road Mansfield, OH 44906 USA --
