RE: AD review comments on

["Dan Wing" <dwing@xxxxxxxxx>]

> At 05:52 PM 9/30/2002 -0700, ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >As long as the WG is happy with this approach I have no problem with it.
> 
> While noticing that no other participants are crying loudly for this 
> feature, I'd like to be clear about its purpose:
> 
> There are 4 major points of recipient-related handling that have 
> substantial import to human communication:
> 
>    1. placed into the administrative control of the recipient (DSN)
> 
>    2. placed into the UA's direct controlby pop/imap (timely)
> 
>    3. read by recipient
> 
>    4. handled/disposed by recipient (MDN)
> 
> The timely mechanism satisfies #2. The question is whether that event is 
> worth noting.
> 
> In terms of process transitions, it is equivalent to the "return receipt" 
> postal function.

It's also the same as a T.30 fax confirmation.  The facsimile output
has been received by the destination fax machine, but it may be printed
on the fax machine, may be stored in memory on the fax machine, might
be lost when the secretary mis-files the fax in the wrong physical 
inbox, might be lost on the bottom of 10 other faxes, etc.

> That standard function has a physical hand-off to a human 
> at the destination address, and has them sign for it. (A version of the 
> function requires that the signature be from the exact addressee, but we do 
> not need that distinction.)
> 
> POP has exactly the right name, for the service it provides.  It is used 
> when picking up mail from a place that is equivalent post office box.

Using POP to indicate receipt extends the current state-of-the-art of 
T.30 fax confirmation.

> Note that FedEx will not delivery to a POBox. In other words, having a 
> human acknowledge the hand-off is important.
> 
> Having the MUA acknowledge the handoff does not make a claim about reading 
> or disposition. However it does make a claim about receipt of the copy by 
> direct "agent" software running on behalf of the user.
> 
> This event is important in the paper world.  Simply knowing that the post 
> office has deposited the mail into your mailbox is NOT deemed 
> noteworthy. 

So I have been wasting my money with return-receipt-requested?

> Handing it to a responsible agent IS.
> 
> The role of the timely timer is also significant, by providing system 
> guidance about the urgency of the message, relative to recipient receipt, 
> not just Internet.  And timely makes informing the originator part of the 
> time factor.
> 
> It would be helpful to have comments about this issue from other 
> participants in the working group.

Some ifax devices decided to use POP, instead of SMTP, to implement their 
ifax retrieval function.  I have stated for years that this is a faulty 
implementation decision, as it requires extending the semantics of
message "delivery".

-d

> d/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850
>