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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 12:51:28PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/18/01 12:32 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> 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.

Cheers,
-- 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