Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

I thought so.

Given that SMTP is a subset of message transfer protocols, 2) would mean
adding verbs and extensions to the rest of them too.

http, ftp, pop3 and imap spring to mind.

Whilst some of them might need extending to provide or understand the
tracking ID hand-off, it seems that incorporating the querying mechanism
only into SMTP wouldn't be terribly flexible.

A particular example might be extending the EDI-INT AS2 spec (EDI, S/MIME
and HTTP).  Not an SMTP server in sight - but a definite need for a
trackable message.

1) seems much more flexible in a heterogenous environment

Paul

--
Paul Ford-Hutchinson : EMEA eCommerce application security :
[email protected]
MPT-6, IBM , PO Box 31, Birmingham Rd, Warwick, CV34 5YR +44 (0)1926 462005


Tony Hansen wrote:

The two choices on the table are:

1) Provide a separate protocol (the Message Tracking Query Protocol, or
MTQP) that lets you query a message's tracking status.

2) As part of the MTRK SMTP extension, add a verb that lets you query a
message's tracking status. It would be similar in a way to HELP, NOOP,
EXPN and VRFY in that it's not used in the sending of mail messages.

The original proposal was to do the second one. At Adelaide it was
proposed that we do the first one. The support for a separate protocol
was overwhelming among the people who were there.

     Tony Hansen
     [email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > I'd be curious as to the justification for creating a separate
> > protocol for message tracking.  to me it doesn't make any sense.
>
> It is unclear to me what the alternative would be.  Can you elaborate ?