Subject: Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:41:38 +0100

Tony Hansen wrote:

>No, because the problem space was purposely limited to that of tracking
>a message until it has delivered to a user's mailbox or passed on to a
>network element for which tracking information cannot be provided.

Cannot because it doesn't or cannot because it can't.  If this is absorbed
into SMTP then non-SMTP transports will be the latter not the former.

> That
>is, pop3 and imap would not need additions. I can't say I've ever heard
>of ftp being used for message transfer,

It sure is.  Quite common in the EDI world at the moment.

> and http's use has typically
>been for message access (ala imap and pop) and not message transmission.

draft-ietf-ediint-as2-07.txt specifically uses http as the transport
mechanism for EDI messages across the Internet - when those messages are
also routed through EDI VANs or other message transport services, it would
be nice to preserve the ability to track them.

Paul

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:49:55 +0100

>? All the stuff about screwdrivers and pocket-knives was trying to say
that
>? they do and they will.
>uh, no.  it was trying to say that we shouldn't waste time trying to help
>people who misuse tools.

Again a mis-communication - I meant "All the stuff that I was talking
about,  which you referred to with the line about screwdrivers and
pocket-knives, was trying to say that they do and they will."  Sorry for my
ambiguous English.  I editied for readability, thinking I had lost no
clarity - obviously I was wrong.

Paul