[Mailman-Developers] Re: GET vs POST (was Re: subscription confirmations)

Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:05:26 -0400

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:02:40PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > My apologies that this is ugly; I'll try to clarify all my
> > assertions here to avoid wasting bandwidth.
> Using an MUA/editor which handled quote line wrapping properly would
> have helped quite a bit.  Suggest SuperCite.  If you're one of those
> desperate vim users per recent SVLUG traffic VIM has a
> mode/macro/tool/something to properly handling quote wrapping.

I use par; the wrapping was botched before it got to me and I was too
lazy to unscrew *all* of it.

> > Perhaps I'm mistaken, and a POST *can* be called with a ? 
> > parameter, but in general, if you see a ?, the call will be the
> > default GET, and if the page is sending parameters as a POST, then
> > they'll be sent "out of band" to the URL, and the method will be
> > POST instead of GET.
> Nope.  Do a packet sniff and watch.  Its still a GET, its just that
> most systems will read variables off the URL as if they had been
> POSTed

That answer isn't an answer to any of the possible questions embedded
in my comment, Joe.  :-)

Most URL's are sent using the GET method, and some of those have
parameters to a CGI hanging off a "?".  The conjecture was that if you
saw a "?", it *had* to be a GET; POSTs weren't *allowed* to have both
types of parameters.  That's conjecture because I don't know the
standard well enough... but your reply doesn't clarify that question.

- jra
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra@baylink.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