W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > May 2002

FW: Updated Email Binding

From: Mountain, Highland M <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:18:03 -0700
Message-ID: <ED492E16A0B8D311AC490090276D20841709C376@fmsmsx31.fm.intel.com>
To: "XMLP Comments (E-mail)" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark Baker (E-mail)" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Fallside (E-mail)" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Per SOAP WG Telecon Action Item, I am sending this note to XMLP Comments. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:23 AM
To: Mountain, Highland M
Cc: XML Distributed Applications List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Updated Email Binding

Last week at WWW2002, Rohit Khare mentioned something that I believe
demonstrates why a RFC 822/2822 binding is not a protocol binding.

During one of our Developers Day protocols panels, he suggested that
the behaviour of the "Bcc" header depended upon the semantics with which
the message was transferred.  For example, if a message that was
constructed with this SMTP binding were transferred with HTTP (a
perfectly valid thing, since HTTP also uses RFC 822), then the Bcc
header would be passed through, rather than being treated as hop-by-hop.
The processing of Bcc in the expected way *requires* that it and the
message be tranferred with email semantics.  The only way that this can
currently be done, since there exists no abstract description of what an
email binding entails, is to bind the message to an email transfer
protocol.  I don't particularly care which one is used, though I believe
SMTP is the only widely deployed standardized one.


Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2002 16:18:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:14:12 UTC