From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/8456
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: William Perry <wmperry@aventail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: mailto:address?subject=subject URL support
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:02:58 -0700
Message-ID: <199610212102.OAA02350@newman.in.aventail.com>
References: <rjzq1gcw53.fsf@kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk>
	<199610021459.HAA00395@newman.in.aventail.com>
	<wh4tjounnd.fsf@norne.metis.no>
Reply-To: wmperry@aventail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035148613 12222 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:16:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: (qmail 12875 invoked from smtpd); 21 Oct 1996 21:21:32 -0000
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@129.240.64.2)
  by deanna.miranova.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 1996 21:21:31 -0000
Original-Received: from newman.in.aventail.com (root@newman.aventail.com [38.225.141.10]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <XAA19540@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:03:06 +0200
Original-Received: from wmperry.oz.net.aventail.com (root@newman [192.168.1.1]) by newman.in.aventail.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA02350; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:02:58 -0700
Original-To: Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>
In-Reply-To: <wh4tjounnd.fsf@norne.metis.no>
Errors-to: wmperry@aventail.com
X-Face: O~Rn;(l][/-o1sALg4A@xpE:9-"'IR[%;,,!m7</SYF`{vYQ(&RI1&EiH[FvT;J}@f!4kfz
 x_!Y#=y{Uuj9GvUi=cPuajQ(Z42R[wE@{G,sn$qGr5g/wnb*"*ktI+,CD}1Z'wxrM2ag-r0p5I6\nA
 [WJopW_J.WY;
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8456
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8456

Steinar Bang writes:
>>>>>> William Perry <wmperry@aventail.com>:
>
>> Per Abrahamsen writes:
>
>>> Here is a patch that allows Gnus to handle mailto URLs of the form:
>
>>> <URL:mailto:list-request@your.smartlisthost?Subject=subscribe>
>
>>> It seems to be an undocumented Netscape extension, but I might be
>>> wrong about that.  Maybe wmperry knows.
>
>> It is definitely a netscape 'extension'.  Jamie Z. recently posted
>> the closest thing to a spec they apparently have in house.  This was
>> on the www-html mailing list.
>
>Hum, yes.  If I remember correctly, it was never meant to be published.
>It was just meant as a hidden implementation detail, because they used the
>same code to do several things.

  The only reason I believe that is because I heard it from Jamie. :)

-Bill P.