[Mailman-Developers] Re: GET vs POST (was Re: subscription confirmations)
Jay R. Ashworth
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:01:37 -0400
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 12:51:28PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/18/01 12:32 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Alas, this is *just like* making the GET active, only worse.
> How? I'm confused. Either way, you end up at a page with the confirmation
> information and an "accept" button (or use whatever terminology you want).
> If you think that's wrong, what do you think would work? I'm lost where
> you're headed here.
The two suggested approaches were, as I understood them, a URL embedded
in the mail with a GET that was active and actually *did* the
unsibscribe, and a URL embedded in the mail with a "pseudo-GET"; that
is, there is no "?", but the URL is *still* magic, and performs the
action when the URL is retrieved.
If I correctly understood your latter suggestion, then that's even
worse, because 'scoopers' can't even avoid it -- it's not marked as
'magic' by the "?" character in the URL.
Jay R. Ashworth email@example.com
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
-- Simon Slavin in a.f.c