Eric Burger (eburger@snowshore.com)
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:44:22 -0400
Already been done. Check out
Critical Content of Internet Mail,
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-vpim-hint-07.txt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org
[mailto:owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org]On Behalf Of Andrew Hobson
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:39 PM
To: vpim@lists.neystadt.org
Subject: [VPIM] VPIM in the real world
The VPIM standard has a lot going for it. Using MIME to identify
voice mail messages is an elegant solution. It is what MIME was
designed for. Unfortunately, current MUA implementations destroy the
usefulness of VPIM.
When Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 forwards a MIME message, it
recreates the Content-Type for each attachment according to what it
thinks is correct based on the filename extension. For example, if
the first sample message in RFC 2421 is forwarded by OE, the
Content-Type of the attachment "msg1.726" will be set to
application/octet stream if no handler for the extension ".726" is
configured.
The implication of this is that UM products that use the VPIM RFC to
identify voice mail messages will not recognize voice mail that has
been forwarded via email by OE. Unfortunately, that makes the VPIM
RFC largely irrelevant if you want to have Unified Messaging today and
you want to use OE today.
It would behoove the VPIM community to come up with a standard that
will allow UM products to recognize voice mail messages that have been
forwarded using OE. Changing the behavior of OE would be ideal, but I
don't think that is a pragmatic solution. It's not clear that we
could get OE's behavior changed, and even if we could, it would take
too long for the new version to gain wide acceptance.
[snip]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Oct 22 2001 - 19:42:39 IST