Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA19886; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:16:19 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:15:46 -0500 Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA19820; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:15:43 -0500 Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id OAA23315; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:15:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199603271915.OAA23315@wilma.cs.utk.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: Dave Crocker cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Headers and agents In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Mar 1996 07:28:57 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:15:35 -0500 Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu > At 8:54 PM 3/26/96, Keith Moore wrote: > >Mailing lists are their own beasts, probably deserving their own section > >in the abstract model document instead of trying to label them as gateways. > > Keith, the enhanced architecture diagram that I showed in L.A. > distinguished "personal" user agents from independent "service" user > agents. You indicated that you would like to defer such model enhancements > for later. It now sounds as if we might want to fold in some of them now. Well, since we're talking about an abstract model, I'd like to keep the number of abstractions small and the definitions of the categories somewhat imprecise, noting that these are just abstractions that don't necessarily correspond exactly to things in the real world. In my mind, mailing lists are an important abstraction, and personal user agents and service agents are not so important. I suppose "mailing lists" fit into the "service agents" category, but lots of people who would know what a "mailing list" is wouldn't have any idea what a "service agent" is. I suppose I think "mailing lists" are their own beasts, because unlike other "service agents", mailing lists tend to accept messages from the Internet community (as opposed to an enclave) and make those messages available to subscribers from the Internet community (again, as opposed to some enclave). Thus they have *two* interfaces that are widely visible, and there are some constraints on mailing lists that don't exist for "service agents" in general. People can/do whatever they like within enclaves (and this includes mailing-list-like-thingys within enclaves), but when they start building widely visible interfaces and/or using standard software packages, it's helpful if the standards documents give rules and/or advice to keep them working well. Keith