Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-08.txt

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:07:07 PDT, Dave Crocker said:

> KM> The current definition of this extension makes it essentially useless
> KM> when attempting to send mail to any recipient that is not known in
> KM> advance to support CONPERM/CONNEG.
> 
> That's right. Much like the long-standing problem of sending a MIME
> attachment for a vcard, if you do not already know that they support
> vcard. Or for sending any MIME type, if you do not already know it is
> supported.
> 
> So, really, you are focusing on the general problem of knowing whether
> the SMTP relay chain supports particular SMTP options. That is a
> laudable goal, but it is not one we are trying to solve.

I think Keith's point is that failing to solve that goal results in brain damage.

It's interesting you use the 'vcard' example - I have actually had a *lot* of
problems with sites that will *BOUNCE* mail if they detect a PGP signature,
due to broken implementations that think all 'application/*' are viruses.

Keith is saying "It's broken on the 822 level, let's not do it on the 821 level too".

> Right now, Internet mail does not permit conversions to be done anywhere
> in the relay chain. I suggest we try to support the simple scenario --
> which has already turned out to be far more complex than we first
> thought necessary -- before trying to solve the general case, especially
> since we have no demonstrated need for it.

The fact it's a lot more complicated for the simple case should give you pause....

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQE/ORk1cC3lWbTT17ARAkJqAJ9P0waIhs+fx+4jKgyweUhgXITSmQCeNQQv
v0YUZDaz0hntinuwA5xerdg=
=13vQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----