Re: [VPIM] Re: draft-ema-vpim-pndn-00.txt

[Mark Fraser <mfraser@xxxxxxxxx>]

Either a system "takes responsibility" for delivery and notification, or it
does not.

You may treat personal email in a cavalier manner, but don't force its
failings onto FAX carriage.  And while I personally feel that there are
still many dozens of bandaids needed to make email conform to some
minimal standard of performance, I would rather see this model be
fixed, rather than further compromised by relaxing the definition of
"delivered".   Just my $0.0166 / mark


Keith Moore wrote:

> > I have not posted to the FAX-WG in a VERY long time, but I must agree here,
> > that failure to deliver even the smallest part of a message is a failure,
> > period.
>
> It might be true for fax, but I don't think it's true in general.
> In particular, if a body part cannot be delivered because it cannot
> be translated into the recipient's environment, that's not necessarily
> a failure.  (e.g. should my palm pilot report delivery failure because
> it doesn't understand ms-tnef documents?).
>
> and there's a very fine line between 'cannot be translated because
> the recipient's environment doesn't support this content-type'
> and, say, 'cannot be translated because the message is garbled'.
> at times it will be impossible to tell the difference between the two.
> just because you recognize a content-type doesn't mean that you
> understand how to deal with every variant of that content-type.
>
> Keith