[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt
The problem is what generates the notification, a mail transfer
agent/gateway, or an end-point device.
A mail transfer agent/gateway speaks ESMTP, and thus has DSN as an available
An end-point device only has MDN available to it. Worse yet, if the sender
requested delivery notification, yet the end-point cannot deliver the
message, the last MTA will send a successful DSN, as the MTA successfully
delivered the message to the end-point. Thus, the end-point MUST issue a
MDN to let the sender know that the message, in fact, failed.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-cc-03.txt includes a
detailed description of how this situations comes about and how to resolve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-fax@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-fax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Hiroshi Tamura
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 8:20 PM
> To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dwing@xxxxxxxxx; maeda.toru@xxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-fax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-maeda-faxwg-fax-processing-status-00.txt
> > > > Can we add this to a document somewhere -- that a POP (or IMAP)
> > > > implementation is expected to return MDN, and an SMTP-only
> > > > is expected to honor DSN and return MDN?
> > >
> > >That's what I was saying when we talked a few days ago.
> > >
> > >In smtp-only case,
> > >only DSN with the information you propose is enough.
> > What is the purpose of these different "signals". In other
> words, why is
> > it useful for Internet fax to have different notices being returned,
> > depending upon whether POP or SMTP are being used?
> My comment may not satisfy you.
> Here, I am saying that both DSN and MDN are not necessary
> in an SMTP-only implementation and only one notification is enough.
> I am not the one who proposes. In case of DSN,
> I think the same format Maeda-san proposes could be used.
> According to his ideas, to reply received pages is important.
> I do not intend to have different "signals".
> I think Maeda-san comments sooner or later.
> Hiroshi Tamura, Ricoh Company, LTD.
> E-mail: tamura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx