W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

From: Bob Cunnings <cunnings@lectrosonics.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:05:39 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <3C9067E3.14006.86014B9@localhost>
Here is a example (conceived to address a particular business 
requirement), of using a "tunnelist" approach to support a 
request/response MEP via POP (in) and SMTP (out), with a 
dependency on MIME packaging.

http://www.whitemesa.com/wmsoapgw_about.htm

Tunneling seemed to be the only viable option at the time...

RC

>  Mark,
>  how do you accomplish acknowledgement in email? As far as I know
> all the standardized ways are optional and usually unimplemented
> or even ignored for security reasons.
>  If you mean hop-by-hop at the transport level (transport
> intermediaries), I think in case of email where you logically
> never have a single hop transfer, this hop-by-hop ack is useless
> to the sending SOAP node.
>  Oh, and I'm veeeeery interested in your non-tunneling use of 
> SMTP. 8-)
>  Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Mark Baker wrote:
> 
>  > Currently, the only MEP that's been defined is request/response.  In
>  > starting work on the SMTP protocol binding however, I feel that it's
>  > best to avoid request/response because SMTP is not a request/response
>  > protocol.  To do request/response with SMTP would necessarily be
>  > tunneling, and a major security issue.
>  > 
>  > Would there be any objections to us defining a new MEP that represents
>  > a one way message with hop-by-hop acknowledgement, like SMTP?  I see
>  > this as being reusable for any binding to a message queue based transfer
>  > protocol.
>  > 
>  > MB
>  > 
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 11:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT