Re: MSGTRK pre-drafts

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. That
is, pop3 and imap would not need additions. I can't say I've ever heard
of ftp being used for message transfer, and http's use has typically
been for message access (ala imap and pop) and not message transmission.

	Tony Hansen
	[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> 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 ?