Graham Klyne (GK@dial.pipex.com)
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:35:49 +0000
At 09:13 AM 1/24/00 -0800, ned.freed@innosoft.com wrote:
>Now, the enhancement to DSNs presently being discussed is fairly different in
>character -- we're talking about noting damage to or loss of specific message
>parts, not loss of bits in an image. But I'm nevertheless worried about the
>user perception of this facility, especially given past experience in how
>these
>things can be misinterpreted.
>
>I guess my conclusion is that unless the user agents do a stellar job of
>correlating the partial delivery information with the original message this
>feature isn't going to be useful. And given the very slow uptake of user agent
>support for parsing and correlation of regular DSNs, I'm pretty pessimistic
>about this entire thing.
I take your point, but it is interesting to note that one of the drivers
for considering partial delivery notification has come from the traditional
fax community -- As I recall, ITU-T SG8 have asked for Internet fax to
report how many pages have been delivered. (I include below what I
understand to be the requirements from SG8.)
(I'm less clear about the driver from the voice mail community.)
#g
2.2 Request - 2.2 The fax processed status information in RFC2530
needs to be enhanced. We need a facility to enable the total number of
pages and pages in error to be returned to the sender in a MDN to
indicate successful processing. We need further precision on the fax
status information using DSN and/or MDN.
2.3 Request - Similarly the specification within RFC2298 for the
value processed need to be enhanced. We need further precision to ensure
that the specific MDN response that is generated clearly indicates that
the MIME body part(s) has been successfully processed (i.e. printed or
displayed).
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 20:37:57 IST