Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

 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 04:56:45 UTC