Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT)
> > The 200 doesn't come from the recipient, it comes from the mailbox
> > saying "thanks, got it, I'll take it from here".
> > There's actually many possibilities for how this can be structured.
> See, this is where I get off the REST bus.
I should have introduced a disclaimer. AFAIK, this position of
mine wrt replacing other application protocols isn't a general
position of REST proponents.
> I say "Can you do REST over
> SMTP?", knowing that there is a big move in the Web Services world to
> use both SMTP and Jabber as transport mechanisms and wondering if that
> is incompatible with RESTfulness, and you say "Yes, sure you can", by
> which you mean "No, absolutely not, what you need to do instead is
> replace SMTP with HTTP."
I didn't mean it to be exclusive of other possibilities. I also
obviously misunderstood your question.
> The installed base of SMTP is so vast its never going away, so the
> real answer here is "REST can only be done over HTTP, the One True
Never is a long time.