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

Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:11:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203141711.MAA02848@markbaker.ca>
To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
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-)


> 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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC