Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

Hi Jacek,

>  Mark,
>  how do you accomplish acknowledgement in email?

Stuart explained it well.  Basically the response you get to your
attempt to send email to a SMTP server is a hop-by-hop acknowledgement.
A "success" response doesn't mean "the recipient received your message",
it just means "this hop accepted your message for forwarding".

> 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),

s/transport/transfer 8-)

> 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.

I don't follow.

>  Oh, and I'm veeeeery interested in your non-tunneling use of 
> SMTP. 8-)

Cool.

> Oh, I forgot to add that I'd in fact like to see a one-way MEP, 
> but without the ACKs.

I was considering mentioning this.  It's really the degenerate MEP,
because it's the pattern that the envelope uses without a binding.
I agree that giving it a URI would be a good thing though.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 12:07:35 UTC