Andrew Hobson (andrew.hobson@cbeyond.net)
24 Oct 2001 14:38:08 -0400
"Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <gregv@lucent.com> writes:
> I recognize your pain. I love for new functionality to magically show up in
> the installed base. I'd be making lots more money if that were true.
> However, there really is no effective way to add functionality to a client
> without eh, adding functionality to the client. If the client does not
> label the content as a voice message, how is the recipient to know it's a
> voice message? If the client does not send the file in a format the
> recipient expects, how is it to interpret it?
It looks like I haven't communicated effectively. I'm sorry.
The proposal I sent in my original message does not require changes on
the client, but by the UM vendor.
My suggestion is for the UM vendor to include a text attachment in
addition to whatever it is currently doing when sending a voice
message as an email. If a non VPIM/IVM MUA such as OE forwards the
email, the text attachment will be preserved and the UM system will be
able to use the text attachment to recognize the forwarded message as
a voice message.
This doesn't help the MUA any, but it does allow the UM system to
present the voice message via the Telephony User Interface, which I
think is important.
Please note that my proposal is not intended to supercede or replace
VPIM or IVM or any other standard. It is only intended to give the UM
system a fighting chance to determine that an email contains a voice
message prior to the widespread acceptance of VPIM/IVM aware MUAs.
Drew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Oct 24 2001 - 20:38:13 IST