Mark Fraser (markotime@home.com)
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 05:56:22 -0800
Thank you for expressing it so much better than I.
I agree completely / mark
Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> I believe this debate has wandered somewhat from the original proposal that
> sparked it, and I'll try to use Keith's comment to bring it back...
>
> At 12:56 AM 1/25/00 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >What I don't think you can do - or at least, I don't see how to do -
> >is define reasonable 'delivered' vs. 'not delivered' criteria for
> >arbitrary multipart MIME messages.
>
> This is exactly the point I was trying to address...
>
> We have argued (I think we agree) that a partial NDN mechanism should be a
> natural extension of DSN that can reasonably be interpreted by existing
> DSN-aware senders. This requires that the receiving MTA must make a
> judgement about overall success/failure for the purposes of DSN generation,
> even if it will supplement that information with partial delivery
> information (which, to partially address Ned's point, may help an NDN-aware
> sender to make an appropriate report to the user).
>
> I was (implicitly) agreeing with Eric that if the original message is
> accompanied by critical part information (whatever that may be), then it is
> reasonable to declare success if all the critical parts are delivered.
>
> But in the absence of such information, and given choice between declaring
> success or failure, then I was suggesting that failure to deliver _any_
> part should result in a report of failure to deliver the message as a
> whole. The alternative of declaring success seems unreasonable (but I am
> open to hear other proposals).
>
> #g
>
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> (GK@ACM.ORG)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 16:16:41 IST